EU Parliament Rubber Stamps ACTA Approval
from the too-bad dept
Despite serious concerns about the way ACTA was negotiated, as well as a declaration against ACTA, it appears that the EU Parliament has reversed course and more or less said that ACTA can move forward. This isn't really surprising, but at least suggests that the EU Parliament doesn't seem to understand what it's voting on half of the time, as it will flat out disagree with itself for no clear reason.
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: acta, eu, eu parliament
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(Excuse me while I go mop up the flem...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Entirely Right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Entirely Right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It gives politicians a good excuse to invade the privacy of us all. Even those that respect copyright and creators.
So... Next time you start another old, boring rant about freedom of speech, privacy, choice, monopoly and evil multimedia corporations.. do us all a favor.
Show us a working example of marketing the creative content online. Paste that link, now and thend to make us, incompetent politics and lazy creators, see the light.
If you fail with that, give us a hint of a legal solution that would be acceptable in your opinion?
Or is that too "creative" process for you, and you expect someone else to do it for you ? Free of charge, of course?
[ 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:
The existence of IP is what needs justification, not its lack. The burden is on you to justify interfering with my right to copy what I please and so far IP maximists have justified nothing.
It is my natural right to copy what I please. The founding fathers even agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You seem to be new here. You might want to actually read what we write before making false statements about what we say. Otherwise you may look foolish.
It gives politicians a good excuse to invade the privacy of us all. Even those that respect copyright and creators.
Huh?
Show us a working example of marketing the creative content online. Paste that link, now and thend to make us, incompetent politics and lazy creators, see the light.
Again, you appear to be new here. Try looking around before you insist we've never done such things.
Some places to start looking:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090621/1626125300.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/arti cles/20091119/1634117011.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090201/1408273588.shtml
http://w ww.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml
That's a very short list. We've done a LOT more than that. In fact, we have a whole case studies section, which is relatively new, so there's only a half dozen examples, but it is linked in the top bar: http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/ Kinda looks foolish for you to claim we haven't done this, now doesn't it?
Or is that too "creative" process for you, and you expect someone else to do it for you ? Free of charge, of course?
*Sigh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only thing that's insane is the idea that you can impede my natural right to copy what you please for 95+ years. The idea that I can freely copy what I please is perfectly sane and normal, copying is perfectly natural for humans (and some animals) and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. IP maximists are insanely selfish. You have absolutely no right to tell me what I can and can't copy, if you don't like it then don't produce anything and do something productive like finding another job. Others will produce content without you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I can't understand how two hundred years ago, fourteen years was long enough to capitalize on your work, but today, with all the technological advances, including an easily accessible world market(not so easy two hundred years ago), we need such long copyright terms.
How does this enrich public domain? Why can't you make enough money in fourteen to twenty-eight years?
I would love an explanation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"They" did try the mp3 sales, but mp3's were distributed for free between fans, not sold. Even Jobs gave up on DRM, and he is in the computer business. Thats where the investment in the new production stopped and there will be none in the "wild west file market", until something changes.
CelebriFi: "Aguilera's fourth Studio Album fell out of the Top 10, with sales barely hitting a disappointing 200,000 in its five weeks of release"
Doh.. Greedy, aren't we? 2mio tracks sold is not good enough for ya, eh? You should look into new business models and get 45k free downloads in 6 months... Clueless buggers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Is this guy serious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and do you know why this doesn't work offline? Only because the government grants control over public airwaves and cableco infrastructure to big corporations who refuse to air content that they don't have IP control over. These same corporations demand that any restaurant or other venue that wants to have live bands pay them ridiculous fees under the pretext that some of these bands "might" infringe. Makes it hard for competitors to enter the market. Many musicians will be more than glad to have their creative commons licensed content aired on public airwaves but those who wrongfully control those public airwaves won't allow it. They get a monopoly on both the distribution channels and the content effectively ensuring that consumers almost only consume monopolized content that they control.
I do not want monopolized content displacing permissibly licensed content on public airwaves. The government has no right to sell my right to use those public airwaves however I please to the highest bidding corporations who then only uses those public airwaves to their best interest. If the government is to grant monopoly privileges over public airwaves they should ensure that those airwaves are used for the public interest, not the corporate interest. Same thing applies to television programming on public airwaves.
At one time there was plenty of music on public airwaves and broadcasters didn't even pay musicians or copy"right" holders for such content (sometimes musicians even paid broadcasters to have their music aired), musicians were more than glad to have their music freely promoted and they found other ways to make money. Copy"right" is not needed and was never needed for good content to be created. Many of histories best artists produced without such monopolies (ie: Mozart and Beethoven, Michelangelo and many sculptors). Copy"right" isn't needed, it was never needed, and it only hinders innovation by giving corporations that control public airwaves incentive to broadcast based on whether or not they have copy privileges on the content that they broadcast and not based on the merit of the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People were making music and other types of content WAY before the notion of copyright ever even existed.
So what's the point of this ACTA treason again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I chose to be quiet so far. Now, with ACTA underway its becoming harder. I hate the government spying on my computer as much as the next guy (ACTA or no ACTA they are doing it anyways).
I know all about the old "new" formula CwF+RtB=$$. There is nothing new about it. It's been around for decades. Now, when RtB is replaced with NNtB (No Need to Buy - its free), it hardly makes sense anymore. I may be passionate on the issue, but I am not stupid.
Do you take these links serious? Walk through:
1. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090621/1626125300.shtml
Make notes here, fellow creators. We're on a roll:
Downsize. Resize. Lower the price. Beg. Sell your CD in package with your car (good old added value trick). "Pay me what you want" (concept AKA beg harder). Sleep with fans or at least take them out for a dinner (Turn tricks to boost your income when everything else fails).
Would you do the same for your paycheck, BTW?
http://www.techdirt.com/arti cles/20091119/1634117011.shtml
Same as #1. Same record, same guy, same model.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090201/1408273588.shtml
Again, more of the same...
http://w ww.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtm
The most frequently suggested online business model. Give your stuff away for free online. Right to copy is fundamental human right, as a witty guy above me says. Basically - Leave us alone with your "creation" and do your "business" elsewhere.
Sooo... Thats it, huh? I am not impressed so far...
[ 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:
That applies to EVERY business. Only the most decadently bourgeois or salary-men who can do their entire job with their brain on autopilot are able to go through life without having to expend any effort at earning their living. When you work for someone else, they take care of the complexities of running a business, but you have to perform to their expectations. When you're independent, you get to build your business by performing to the expectations of your customers.
Seriously, who are you and what do you do; are you aristocracy? I've got a quite comfortable middle class life, and even I can't imagine someone so sheltered and conceited they think that they're entitled to a successful and comfortable life without expending any effort or having to perform to someone else's satisfaction at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or is that only valid when they say the right things that you can agree with?
Believe it or not, I am out to find a good, working business model. You can't really depend on politics and industry to come up with one, now can you? It is not my intention to insult anyone and I don't mind if you insult me. My position is not very popular these days. You get used to insults.
What I would like is a good productive debate with people that have different views and ideas then mine. So, please. Surely you can do better then "pay me what you want"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Surely you can do better then "pay me what you want"?"
A: That's not necessarily what people are saying. They're saying you get paid what the free market is willing to pay you.
B: If pay what you want works, then what's wrong with it? That's free market capitalism.
Surely you can do better than, "No one wants to pay me and the world owes me something"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Who's Who Of Clueless Music Industry Lobbyists..."
I thought attacking people was part of it? Maybe only if you attack the right ones? I am sorry if I got that wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My bad. I thought you wanted people to take you seriously and not merely toss sarcastic insults at you. Carry on, everyone!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
BTW, what is the current rate for a presentation at a seminar these days? "Pay what you want"?
I bet Mike has a better business plan than that for himself :). So lets try to find one for us as well?
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've asked in several other threads in several other ways, but I guess I'm insane so I'll ask again:
Why do you consider copyright and the level of IP protection currently enshrined in laws to be good?
What additional benefits do you see for companies, artists, would-be artists and society as a whole in extending these further?
(Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
History of copyright shows that the same concept was followed through decades. Those, who create "ideas" are important to society as much as those, who create products and services. They are important enough to be encouraged to create more ideas in the future. Important enough to be given two basic legal rights, whenever their ideas are expressed or fixated.
One would be the right to decide how, where and by whome their work is used, (or at least the right to dissagree with the use every now and then). The other is somesort of remuneration for every use of their work that generates profit. Its not much different then with any other service or product. You made something. It is yours to do what you want with it. It is property with value. You can try to sell it at any price you like and get the market response you deserve.
It started with book print and went on to maps,dramatic works, paintings, photographs, sound recordings, motion pictures and computer programs.
Every new way of exploiting creative ideas was followed by a matching legal measure. The idea behind those was always to grant the creator of the idea the rights, needed to keep some control of the use of his work and provide him with equitable remuneration.
Determining remuneration source always followed the same rule. Follow the smell of money. If a club was playing music and making profit with that - part of that profit was to be assigned to those who created the music. Radio station - same thing. When live performance was no longer needed to enjoy music and create profit with it, performers got their neighbouring rights for use of their recorded performances.
Copyright legislation tries to stay "ontop" of things and seeks matching solutions with every new technology change.
The one solution missing right now, is an online solution. There is still great demand for creative content online.Profits are generated, yet the creators seem to be completely cut out of the cash flow. Their "content" (what a disgusting word for it) generates revenue and they get nothing from it. You can see ACTA as a (lame, ambiguous) response to that. It is legitimate to question any legal solution. We need to see first, if it really benefits society or simply sets new unnecessary limitations.
This leads to your questions "Why do you consider copyright and the level of IP protection currently enshrined in laws to be good? What additional benefits do you see for companies, artists, would-be artists and society as a whole in extending these further?"
It is good to motivate creators to do their job. That used to be very important to society in the old days. They got us out of the cave. They invented images, sounds and memories of us, that stay around long after we're gone. We needed them. Maybe we don't need them that much anymore?
We still have enough of market demand for creation today, it seems. But there is much less real motivation. No industry, will be happy with a grateful smile, pat on the back and a charity contribution. What they do must also have economic value. They must have legal framework set, that will allow them to do their business under two fair conditions, mentioned above.
To encourage the production of new ideas and creative content benefits artists and society (I don't care all that much for companies. They come and go). Copyright should motivate new creation and new talent and give the public equal access to creative content.
That is the solution we should be after. It really will benefit all. Instead we see a steady growth of 3PO's. Triple p's. Power Point Prophets. People who like to get under the skin of some passionate interrest group, enflame and support their views, to create a business model for themselves even where they seem to have none for others. We don't need funny formulas that no real industry would ever accept. We need a proper, viable, long term legal and business solutions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While people with ideas maybe important, they are not important enough to tell other people what they can and can't do with an idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one said one is not allowed to sell something, but if I make a copy then that copy is mine and I have a right to give it to others to make copies.
"The one solution missing right now, is an online solution."
A solution to a non existing problem is not a solution.
"It is good to motivate creators to do their job. "
Creators will create without these laws and always have. If you don't like it, then don't create and find another job instead. You're only worried about your job as a lawyer.
"They invented images, sounds and memories of us, that stay around long after we're gone. "
You mean to stay under copyright until they die into history and no one can hear it anymore.
"We needed them. "
What we don't need is lawyers and IP protections that delay progress for no good reason. We can progress perfectly fine without these laws.
"But there is much less real motivation."
[citation needed]
There is more creation now than ever and much of it is released under a CC license. The evidence disagrees with you here.
"No industry, will be happy with a grateful smile, pat on the back and a charity contribution."
That's fine, the industry can find something else to do. Content will still be created without the existing industry and new industries will arise.
"What they do must also have economic value."
no one said it doesnt, but you assume copy protection laws are necessary for such economic value to exist. They're not and never were. Lots of content has been and will continue to be created without these laws.
"They must have legal framework set, that will allow them to do their business under two fair conditions, mentioned above."
Except you have no evidence to back this statement up and plenty of evidence disagrees with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do, however, find some holes in the logic:
For a start the premise you seem to be working from is that remuneration for created works is supported only by copyright and wouldn't exist in it's absence. Logic and experience suggest that's not the case.
If I am hired as a consultant to create a system design I am paid for the work I do. If the company that contracted me then sells that design on to other companies, it has involved no further work for me that requires remuneration. Nor does their sale prevent me from also selling my own design multiple times and those people selling it on until the design becomes common knowledge and valueless.
Except this is where copyright law interferes. In the example above as an external "consultant" the copyright *may* remain with me - somewhat supporting your argument that I can gain the value of my "creation". However if, as happens most often, I am *contracted* to produce such a design, the copyright for my paid work passes to the contracting company and while *I* make nothing further from my work, under copyright law they are free to profit from my work ad-infinitum.
Because the economics of the situation suggest that they being the larger party (and me probably needing the work) will have the leverage. Likely they will be able to dictate the terms and therefore "take" my copyright to the work whether that would be my preference as the creator or not.
To me, therefore, it seems that I as the content creator come out better without copyright law than with. By report (I don't work in the industry), a similar situation seems to pertain to for example the music industry with "artists" (creators) often being forced to release their rights to their creations in order to avail themselves of the "support" of the distribution systems.
Ooops run out of time - perhaps I'll pick up on some other points later. Do you have an opinion on the above?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright legislation is not a business model. It tries to protect, encourage and create fair market conditions for emerging ones.
"For a start the premise you seem to be working from is that remuneration for created works is supported only by copyright and wouldn't exist in it's absence. Logic and experience suggest that's not the case."
I never said the copyright was perfect. I never said it was not abused. The right to transfer copyright licenses is disgusting for one. Multimedia corporations abuse it daily with simple "industry standard" contracts. IMHO, the rights should always stay with the creator.
Another questionable thing, that seems to be bothering you, is the "Work for hire" concept(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire) vs copyright.
You need to understand the difference between copyright in arts (e.g. music) and the system design you were hired to do. Nobody hires a musician to "do" the track. He has to be motivated, to do it by inspiration and joy. Once music is published, it can be used to generate profit by anyone, providing they follow the rules set in the copyright legislation.
This difference actually benefits the society. It gives society full access to culture and entertainment and motivates the creator to take the initiative to create on his own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and the result is that it does the opposite. It's an important aspect of why broadcasters (with a govt imposed monopoly on spectra usage) only broadcast content based on who has IP control over the content and not based on the merits of the content (I've never heard CC licensed content on public airwaves for instance). This prevents independent artists who either have control over their own content or who permissibly license their content for others to freely copy from gaining recognition unless they give complete control of their content to corporations who have an undue influence over our laws.
Copy"right" only tries to protect big industries. It's big industries that support it, it's big industries that lobby for it, and it only exists because big industries want it to. For instance, most of the ACTA process was done behind closed doors but only big industries were invited. To say that these laws try to protect emerging artists or poor artists is unsubstantiated at best. It tries to protect big corporations, that's what it's intended to do and it has no other purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Logic says that if significant benefit or money were available in copyright law that it would be lobbied for by the people who would benefit. The fact that only the gatekeeper organisations (or those paid by them) seem to lobby for the laws suggests to me that the only ones that benefit. I have never for example seen a human rights organisation lobbying for an increase in copyright law because it would benefit society or increase the general wealth. If the motivation is the money provided by copyright (and not the "inspiration and joy" mentioned earlier), then please explain how being able to create a limited number of works then gain addition money while creating nothing futher is more of an incentive than the "paid work" model, where more must be created to gain additional money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just an explanation to those, who get upset easy: "Please, calm down if you can. I am not attacking you personally. I am only challenging your views to learn from them."
How about this: We'll calm down if you stop making unfounded attacks, like saying Techdirt "supports piracy." And we'll have a civil conversation if you consider what we're actually saying, and not think it means "everything must be free" or "pay what you want."
You're not challenging our views at all. You're challenging some sort of fantasy, made-up view which you think we all have. As long as you do that, you'll learn nothing.
Copyright legislation is not a business model. It tries to protect, encourage and create fair market conditions for emerging ones.
The legislation may not be, but copyright absolutely is an economic model. It is the attempt to turn nonrival goods from public goods into club goods. But that can only work when that good is excludable. When art was embodied in physical media, this was possible: the manufacture and distribution of physical copies have marginal costs, which means that large-scale infringement was only possible on a commercial scale. The only reason there is a "problem" now, is because the marginal costs to make a digital copy are zero.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with creating "fair market conditions." It is not supposed to. It is supposed to supply the public with works. Whether artists get paid is important, but secondary.
Furthermore, you can't create "fair market conditions" through legislation. Not with coyright, nor with any industry. A government-granted monopoly is the exact opposite of fair market conditions. There may be valid reasons for that monopoly, of course, but "fair market conditions" can never be one of them.
So, if you truly want "fair market conditions," I'm afraid you're going to have to be a copyright abolitionist. I'm not, but that's your choice.
Nobody hires a musician to "do" the track.
Yes, they do. In fact, most professional musicians are "work for hire" musicians, who don't own the copyright to the music they perform. (Think: studio musicians, jingle writers, members of orchestras, etc.) Why? Because being a "work for hire" musician is far more lucrative than earning money through royalties.
So, before you demand a business model that works better than copyright, you have to recognize that copyright never really worked for artists in the first place.
Techdirt's business models may not work for everyone, but they work much better than ones that depend on royalties from copyright.
So, rather than dismissing them as "everything for free" and "pay what you want," maybe you should actually start listening and taking notes. You'll be better off, trust me. (And incidentally, you can use some of Techdirt's business models, and still collect royalties, if you so choose.)
This difference actually benefits the society. It gives society full access to culture and entertainment and motivates the creator to take the initiative to create on his own.
That's what it's supposed to do, in theory. In practice, it does exactly the opposite.
Copyright is not supposed to grant the public "access" to works, but "use" of those works. The only prohibited "use" was supposed to be the ability of the public to sell copies of those works. That's not the case now - every use is prohibited.
Furthermore, it prevents the creation of "derivative works." Since all art is (to a degree) derivative, this means copyright actively hampers artistic production.
And if you're going to argue "motivation," you'd better have some studies to back it up. Given the fact that more music is being produced now - in the age of "piracy" - why do you believe copyright is necessary to motivate artistic production? If copyright was rolled back to 14 years, which works, specifically, would not have been made? If our laws are the best ones, how do you explain places like Bollywood, which produces more movies than Hollywood, many costing blockbuster-levels of cash, with totally differnet IP laws?
By its own standards, copyright is a failure. Now, there are uses of it that I approve of - e.g. defending artists against commercial exploitation - but even here, it doesn't work very well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some people who read TechDirt might think that the right to making a free copy is a fundamental human right. Another popular name for that right is "piracy".
TechDirt helps them put that right in legal and moral context, by trashing the copyright, calling half of EP MP's incompetent and artists&music business rep's clueless.
Perfect example would be calling the "who's who of music business" clueless for mailing a letter to the wrong address and interpreting the content of the letter as pointless. The idea behind the letter was ignored. It was a protest against publishing links to pirated content in the PC Mag.
It is the kind of attitude that we see all over the net these days. "Nooo...we don't encourage piracy...we simply post links and make fun of people who protest against the use of their work without their consent".
So. "Knock ...knock.. Are you mr. "ILoveCopyright? No?.. I do appologize then, my bad."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The founding fathers think the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, no. Pointing out that copyright is a statutory right granted to Congress - whereas free speech, due process, and property rights are civil rights - is not "advocating piracy." If so, the Constitution itself "advocates piracy."
Another popular name for that is "fair use" and "first sale rights," not "piracy."
It seems that in your mind, anyone who disagrees with copyright law or copyright enforcement in any way is "advocating piracy." That's 100% false, and the sooner you get that idea out of your head, the better.
Perfect example would be calling the "who's who of music business" clueless
Does it matter that it's true? Not just for this, but for many, many other stupid decisions they've made (many having nothing to do with "piracy"). I can give you a list if you want.
The idea behind the letter was ignored.
The idea being that a magazine about PC programs should not talk about nor link to PC programs. Even when the articles make it clear that such programs should only be used legally. I think it deserves to be ignored.
"Nooo...we don't encourage piracy...we simply post links and make fun of people who protest against the use of their work without their consent".
Take a gander at one of the articles about the Cook's Source Magazine scandal. Yeah, everyone here was really "making fun of people who protest against the use of their work without consent," weren't we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A list of stupid decisions made by others, doesn't make any of us wiser. Stupidity, ignorance and greed are as popular as file sharing, and there seems to be no way to limit any of them.
We know I am stupid by now, but what gives you the right to definite position on how stupid "who's who of the music industry" is?
"Yeah, everyone here was really.. "
I never said "everyone" does anything. I am sure Mike did it in his highbrow fashion, though. I try to respect interrest groups positions, including yours, as long as they follow the basic "live and let live".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Speak for yourself.
I try to learn from my own and others mistakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know what else is a global problem? Passing laws that attack free expression, due process, and privacy rights, in the name of fighting piracy. The damage done by those "solutions" is far, far worse than the problem.
Furthermore, if artists and labels actually embraced the "pirates," there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. Copyright holders would make more money, and our civil rights would remain intact. Everyone wins.
what gives you the right to definite position on how stupid "who's who of the music industry" is?
Admitedly, I am biased - having gone to college for music, performed live for decades, written music reviews, run soundboards, worked in music stores, etc. I've done so mosltly in underground music scenes (punk and noise, mostly). The music industry has personally effected me, my musician friends, and the venues I work and perform at.
All their effects have been negative. Not just to underground musicians, but also to musicians on their own rosters, venues that book their bands, and the chain music stores that sold their products. Anyone who has worked near the music industry knows that the industry suits who make the business decisions know only how to rip people off.
I never said "everyone" does anything. I am sure Mike did it in his highbrow fashion, though.
You are "sure" about something false. Techdirt was 100% against Cook's Source Magazine's plagiarism, as was nearly everyone in the comments. Not once did he make fun of the woman who originally objected to the plagiarism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one said otherwise.
"That is the solution we should be after. It really will benefit all."
Except we've had these laws for many years and no one besides the industry hardly ever benefited. They hardly even pay their artists anything and often times they don't even pay their artists what they owe. To speculate that the future will somehow be different than the past, that in the future these laws will benefit all when all they have benefited in the past is big corporations, is unsubstantiated at best. I have many reasons to believe this statement to be false and no reason to believe it to be true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why should it be my, or the governments, responsibility to create a business model for you. That's your job, it's not my job or the governments job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How do you define a "real" industry. One that wants to make money and not do any work? The RIAA, who makes money off of the hard work of artists and hardly pays them anything and contributes nothing of value to society itself. Those who sue restaurants for playing live bands under the pretext that someone might infringe and yet those suing contribute nothing of value to society themselves? Sorry, your definition of "real" industry is fake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Their "ideas" were also very important to society, right? Did they need copyright for those ideas to be created? No.
Do the creators today *need* copyright? I'm not sure, as they keep selling their copyrights to companies, instead of keeping them to themselves.
I am however sure that a life+70years duration of copyright is detremental for our culture.
That's the part that many people are objecting to. The duration, the selling off.
Don't see us as a bunch of "copyright thieves" as a lot of us don't even use P2P in that way.
What I stand for is an abolishment of copyright, in the hopes that we get a more sensible one. (compromizing)
What do I call sensible? For instance a non-resellable copyright, so solely for the content CREATOR, with a lifespan of say 5 years, with a possibility for an extension of that copyright of upto another 5 years, that the content creator can buy. After those 5 to 10 years, the content becomes public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And we will offer you many examples of why it doesn't need to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is that you think there is some kinda magical formula for guaranteed success. A + B + C = Success. Just follow a simple list of procedures without any thought or creativity whatsoever and make money. You should join the TSA or some other government job. Anything that deviates from their list of procedures seems to confuse them and cause them to mess up.
Unfortunately for you free markets don't work that way. You have to satisfy customers or else face going out of businesses. You can't just ask the government to protect you from competition so that you can continue on your uncreative and should be obsolete business model that always works and never advances. No, business models should advance over time, there is no one formula fits all. Such is a sign of an uninnovative environment that doesn't advance. It's your job to make money and compete, not to rely on the government to provide you with a guaranteed business model that works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you haven't found one yet, you're not trying very hard. If you want help, we offer very competitive consulting rates. Give us a call.
Surely you can do better then "pay me what you want"?
Um. I already pointed you to a whole bunch of business models that had nothing to do with "pay what you want." Would you like to have a real debate? Then respond to what we actually say rather than the bullshit made up stuff you want to pretend we said. In other words, stop lying. It's not flattering on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Finally..Time for my last post. I know you will miss my entertaining company.
Now. Abut those rates..
Could they be..like..free? I will pay what I want for them. Maybe if you give me a t-shirt and huge screen TV as well? A nice dinner wouldn't hurt either. :)
Thanks. Its been great fun. No real answers can be found up here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one said one is not allowed to charge for anything.
"No real answers can be found up here."
Answers assume questions. You have no real questions to answer. Solutions assume problems. You have no real problems to find solutions for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ 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:
My time is a scarcity. I give away lots of infinite goods for free, but time is a scarcity.
I will pay what I want for them.
Hilarious. Right after I pointed out that you had falsely stated the business model we suggested was PWYW.
Your attempts at deceit are pretty weak.
Maybe if you give me a t-shirt and huge screen TV as well? A nice dinner wouldn't hurt either. :)
If you'd like, we have things available here: http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php
A few folks have bought the Day With Techdirt Package:
http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php?tid=600
It's quite a lot of fun.
Thanks. Its been great fun. No real answers can be found up here.
Odd. WE gave you a bunch of real answers, you pretended we didn't, so I gave them again. And now you pretend there are no real answers? Perhaps you should try reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He'll be back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No.
See how that works? You make an offer, and its denied, and you don't get your consulting. Looks like your offer of "free" wasn't good enough...and unless you drive by in a black van and kidnap Mike, you can't make him show up at your door.
Now, see that quote? I just copied your words. I didn't even have to ask for permission - you can say no, but you can't stop me from doing it unless you're standing right beside me beating me up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What, it's your job to comment on blogs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Joking aside, I am looking for answers and solutions, as part of my research. I would really like to see a better solution than ACTA to come up sometime soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're assuming there is a problem when there is no problem. The only problem is outrageous copy protection laws that need to be repealed and the fact that the government grants monopolies over information distribution mediums in such a way that only harms artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Answers would include for the government to punish those who demand fees, with the threat of expensive lawsuits, from restaurants and other venues for playing music under the pretext that someone might infringe.
The solution is for the government to stop granting cableco monopolies so that cable television stations can succeed based on merit and not a reliance on their undeserved monopoly rents. That way independent television stations can form and allow independent content creators to gain recognition without giving complete control over their content to corporations that do nothing but scam both artists and the public.
The solution is for the government to allocate broadcasting spectra in the public interest, not in the corporate interest such that only content controlled by big corporations can stand a chance of being broadcasted. Independent artists with content not controlled by big corporations should be able to use public airwaves to promote their content as well and it's not for the government to deny them that right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No one is asking you to do anything, if you don't like it, find another job. Others have and will continue to create without copy protection laws, why should the world create stupid laws just because you won't create otherwise. I'd rather you better contribute to the economy by finding another job instead. Your only complaint seems to be that work is hard, but that's no reason to give you special copy protection privileges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Indeed. In some ways it's the oldest business model around. I'm just reminding people that it still works, because for some reason, some folks don't think it does.
Now, when RtB is replaced with NNtB (No Need to Buy - its free), it hardly makes sense anymore.
And that's where you're wrong. If it's free, then there's no RtB. The point is that there are always new scarcities being produced, and those scarcities are RtBs.
I may be passionate on the issue, but I am not stupid.
I would argue the jury is out on that.
Do you take these links serious? Walk through:
You mean the ones with evidence of how to make money while embracing free? Considering that they prove it works, then, yes, I take them seriously.
Downsize. Resize. Lower the price. Beg. Sell your CD in package with your car (good old added value trick). "Pay me what you want" (concept AKA beg harder). Sleep with fans or at least take them out for a dinner (Turn tricks to boost your income when everything else fails).
If that's what you got out of it, you read it wrong. Or you purposely misread it with an agenda to show off that you are stupid (contrary to your claims).
Would you do the same for your paycheck, BTW?
I do every day. So do you, most likely.
Same as #1. Same record, same guy, same model.
Yeah, because it works. You haven't shown otherwise. Every one of those examples showed people making MORE money than they did before -- contrary to your claims. That is, it proves you wrong. Funny that you won't mention that. You just complain.
Again, more of the same...
Oh my gosh! I show how something works multiple times! And yet you complain that nothing works? Sorry, dude.
The most frequently suggested online business model. Give your stuff away for free online.
That is not the business model. You read it wrong. Go back and read it again. Free is merely a *part* of the business model. If your brain stops at free and ignores the rest, of course you'll fail. And you deserve to. But if you actually want to learn and embrace the economics, there are more opportunities than ever. So which is it?
Basically - Leave us alone with your "creation" and do your "business" elsewhere.
Um. Wow. That's not what I've said at all. I spend a shitload of time showing people how to do business and make more money. I work like 20 hours a day helping people make more money. And the best you can come up with is that I'm telling people to "do their business elsewhere"? Forget it, the jury's no longer out. We have our answer.
Sooo... Thats it, huh? I am not impressed so far...
I'm not trying to impress the clueless. I'm trying to educate those who wish to learn.
This stuff works. I see it every day. Whether or not you are "impressed" or not is meaningless to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The cost of all media to the consumer is going to zero. the record labels will all fail in the next 3-5 years. the collection agencies will all fail in the next 10 years. The business failures will happen in the following order, newspapers, magazines, record labels, TV sudios. The movie studios will survive but become less profitable as their windows begin closing.
Online music sales will flat line in the next year and then begin tanking.
EMI's catalog will probably be purchased by google in the next year. If google doesnt buy it then it will be purchased by google in 2-5 years when the last record label (Warner) collapses. Google seems the only logical choice but with the artists ability to take back their copyright it might not make financial sense.
All in all the failure of the content monopolies is a given and no amout of legislation will change that.
So how about that conversation you were looking for ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Monopolies show this weird tendency to stay around indefinately. I think the outcome will be slightly different once Google get their hands on the label catalog. We will see more of the restrictive, privacy invading solutions in the copyright legislation. Creative content related businesses won't need to invest in new products as long as there will be market for the "recycled" ones. Web 2.0 will generate more garbage, TV stations will create more reality shows, news media will sell out for clicks, entertainment industry will replicate itself indefinately, culture will be.. is.. passtime for old people that can't learn how to use Facebook.
The guy who made the original violin sample using an actual real wooden violin will be found dead from starvation in a crummy rented appartment in Vienna, and we will be forced to reuse his same old violin sample for the rest of the time.
We have outgrown art, now lets make some money and play video games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trademarked Materialism is pulling us away from the Savior
Here an idea on how to live and survive without copyrighted works:
1. Cut your internet, phone, electricity, and cable. Who needs to know or worry about what's happening in the world. Get a 1611 King James Bible and read it. It has all the answers. Further more, get rid of all your books because any book beside The Word of God don't have any answers.
2. Sell your house, give all of your money away, move to the wildnerness. Earthly homes facilitates infringing works. What's the use of living in the home with the copyright material we buy. If we were to read the same book, watch the same DVD, or listen to the same CD, we have to buy them over and over.
3. While in the wildnerness, form a Bible-based group, fish with your bare hands, find some twigs and rocks to build a fire, also find some things to eat like wild berries and mushrooms (remember, Leaf of three, leave it be) and watch out for poisonous mushrooms, only find mushing
Copyrighted works is nothing but love of Materialism. We all need to abstain from materialism and the world. We don't need money from a bank or junk, food from a supermarket, or an earthly home to survive. Materialism is pulling us away from the Savior who loves us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hm. I think thats a bit extreme, but you certainly got a point. ACTA is the corporate attempt to retain control over the market as much as an attempt to regulate the use of creative content in a way that will benefit creators and society.
This sort of development seems like a much better solution to me: http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/company-news-story.aspx?storyid=201011250918dowjonesdjonline000400
No?
http://www.jamendo.com/en/album/49216
This months top Jamendo album (CC release). Fact: 45K downloads at market price $0.You may not use it for commercial purposes (incl. airplay), you may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
You may try to predict the future of creative industry without investments and return on your own. And we're talking about music here. Do you expect someone to come up with 100m budget to make a movie, released under CC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the only thing you have to offer is what someone else can offer for free, then you deserve to make exactly $0.
And thanks for the link, by the way. I'd never heard of Diablo Swing Orchestra before. I downloaded the MP3's, and I thought the music was pretty good. Next time they play in Boston, I'll pay money to see them perform.
I was curious, so I went to their website. No blog; that's disappointing. And it'd be nice if the link to their forum was more prominent, but at least it's there. I see that there are over 34,000 registered users - not bad, for a relatively unknown band from Stockholm.
Maybe that's how they got endorsement money from Evans, Meinl, and Tama. I see they've also got other CD's for sale on Amazon, CDBaby, and iTunes.
Wow, they're certainly doing better than most bands, and they're not even on a major label.
...See how that works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the EU parliament
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm.. I did hear of those guys, yes. Times do change, see.
The artists you've mentioned are actually a great example to demonstrate how and why copyright legislation evolved.
Bach was employed by church and nobelty most of his life. His works were comissioned for performances. He didn't record music that anyone could play and benefit from. He had the control over the use of his work and he was payed for performances of it. No need for copyright there.
Rembrandt's works don't need that much copyright protection either. You can only own a perfect Rembrandt if you buy the original (A Woman Weeping - measly $500,000). Replicating it to a perfect copy requires a bit more then internet xs, PC and a USB key.
In the 18th Century, the great German music publishing enterprises came into being. Breitkopf of Leipzig was the first significant name. He was Beethoven's publisher. Beethoven offered noble patrons an exclusive right to use important pieces for a period of six to twelve months in exchange for payment before these compositions went to press. Thereafter the piece was offered to several competing publishers. Fixed one-time remunerations were set that also included the right to adapt the piece for smaller instrumentations.
We can see the modern copyright legislation come to life right there as Beethoven lost complete control over use of his works. First indicators? Publishers made a lot of money with later prints of Beethoven's work, yet the renumerations Beethoven recieved from them never were an important part of his income. Sounds familiar?
"The only win appears to be for the corporation or "gatekeeper"
You can not have everything. You can't say musicians are better off these days. Not as long as the studies you quote as proof, compensate losses in sales with income from the copyright. That is what I meant with "Wallis" studies. Roger Wallis, anyone? None of you sent flowers to his wife? Thats exactly why copyright legislation needs to extend to internet, or those studies might not look that great anymore.
As for the "gatekeepers", I somewhat share my views with Andrew Keen. Its awful to put up with them, but it would be even worse without them.
"How? How does it "give full access" when any access must be paid for at a rate set by the copyright holder?"
Through the concept of "equitable remuneration". Price of the artistic work is not fixed, when it comes to public use, but rather formed as part of the content providers income. That means that every radio station gets the right to play any song, regardless of their market success. They will only pay a part of their income in the end. Thats how diversity is generated. Without the equitable remuneration, less commercial radio stations couldn't afford to play music for specific interrest groups at minimum revenue.
"A better solution than ACTA would seem to be not ACTA."
Agreed.
"A government-granted monopoly is the exact opposite of fair market conditions."
Monopoly makes life far more simple for content providers and far more complicated for content creators. I suspect thats the idea behind it. While creators don't retain individual control over the use of their work, content providers get "one stop shops" to clear the rights for all works they use, without any limitations. Plus, they get to complain about the insignificant sums they are forced to pay.
"Furthermore, it prevents the creation of "derivative works." Since all art is (to a degree) derivative, this means copyright actively hampers artistic production."
Really? Most artists don't share such hugh opinion on "derivative works" with you.Plagiarism comes to mind. Besides. Most CC works hamper artistic production in the same way.
"Wow, they're certainly doing better than most bands, and they're not even on a major label. ...See how that works?"
45K free downloads since July 2009? No legal airplay, because of CC limitations? You have to be careful when you call something like that a viable business model. I would expect you to get a really good overview of its market impact, value and profits it generates compare to investments.
It could also be great fun if it was grounded in reality. "Toy industry" probably didn't consider the production of plastic round things made back in 1950's a great business model just because Hula Hoops became popular again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
but the changes don't support the need for copy protection laws.
"His works were comissioned for performances. He didn't record music that anyone could play and benefit from. He had the control over the use of his work and he was payed for performances of it. No need for copyright there"
and if it weren't for those who go around suing various venues with live performers under the pretext that someone might infringe, no one is stopping artists from playing music for commission today either.
"You can only own a perfect Rembrandt if you buy the original (A Woman Weeping - measly $500,000). Replicating it to a perfect copy requires a bit more then internet xs, PC and a USB key."
By the time Rembrandt was famous enough to have an original worth so much he had already created many works to allow others to get to know his work. If an artist today gains a reputation so that people value his work, there is no reason why he can't create a new piece of work and sell a perfect piece to a specific venue ahead of time and simply not release it to anyone to copy. The only way for others to get a perfect copy would be to get it from the first person who buys it and they have incentive not to give it away. Sure, others can bring in recording devices, but that hardly creates perfect copies that other venues can use. One again, your example is flawed.
"Beethoven offered noble patrons an exclusive right to use important pieces for a period of six to twelve months in exchange for payment before these compositions went to press. "
Again, no one is saying that artists aren't allowed to offer patrons exclusive rights to use perfect replications of important pieces in exchange for money. Copy"right" isn't needed for that. But once the piece of art goes to press (ie: released on CD or whatever) people should be free to make perfect copies, it's my right.
"We can see the modern copyright legislation come to life right there as Beethoven lost complete control over use of his works."
No one deserves complete control over their works. If copy"right" is to exist it should exist to the benefit of the public. It should be an agreement between the public and the artist where both mutually benefit. The current system is no such thing. Complete control over ones work is not a mutual trade, it's the public simply giving away all of their rights to the maximum possible benefit of the IP holder. I agree to no such thing. The public has no obligation to agree make any agreements whatsoever, it's my right to freely copy what I please. If these laws are to exist they should only exist to the benefit of the public. It's a good thing Beethoven lost complete control over his works, as a result we still have his works today. Otherwise, his works might have been lost in history due to copy"right" laws that shouldn't exist, like so many works of the past century.
"Publishers made a lot of money with later prints of Beethoven's work, yet the renumerations Beethoven recieved from them never were an important part of his income."
So what?
"You can't say musicians are better off these days."
If it's true, why not?
"Not as long as the studies you quote as proof, compensate losses in sales with income from the copyright."
What quoted studies have done such a thing? and how can copyright income compensate anything if there are no sales?
"None of you sent flowers to his wife?"
To say that artists are better off is not to say that all artists are better off. Sure, some are worse off, being they have more competition.
"Its awful to put up with them, but it would be even worse without them."
How is this so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Errr... sorry, where the public optimally benefits *
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How is this so? Are you only saying that because you benefit from the existence of gatekeepers? More than likely.
The problem is the gatekeepers. The government wrongfully gives them monopoly power over information distribution channels and they abuse their monopoly power to only benefit themselves. That's wrong. Things like public airwaves either need to be open for the public to freely use or they should be only allocated in the public interest. and gatekeepers that prevent restaurants and other venues from playing independent music without paying the gatekeepers unnecessary fees do no one, besides themselves, any favors. They're not needed.
"Through the concept of "equitable remuneration". Price of the artistic work is not fixed, when it comes to public use, but rather formed as part of the content providers income. That means that every radio station gets the right to play any song, regardless of their market success. They will only pay a part of their income in the end. Thats how diversity is generated. Without the equitable remuneration, less commercial radio stations couldn't afford to play music for specific interrest groups at minimum revenue."
So you're saying that because radio stations must pay to play music they could now afford to have fewer commercials?
"Monopoly makes life far more simple for content providers and far more complicated for content creators. I suspect thats the idea behind it. While creators don't retain individual control over the use of their work, content providers get "one stop shops" to clear the rights for all works they use, without any limitations. Plus, they get to complain about the insignificant sums they are forced to pay."
So only the IP holders benefit, not the creators. Yes, that's the idea, to benefit the otherwise unnecessary middlemen. and the middlemen only pay insignificant sums to the artists and so everyone besides the middlemen loses. Lets abolish these laws, they're not necessary and never were.
"Really? Most artists don't share such hugh opinion on "derivative works" with you.Plagiarism comes to mind. Besides. Most CC works hamper artistic production in the same way."
[citation needed]
"45K free downloads since July 2009?"
and so content is created despite being released under licenses designed to, at least to some extent, circumvent copy protection laws.
"No legal airplay, because of CC limitations?"
and many on Techdirt disagree with the non-commercial use CC licenses, but it's copyright that permits that.
"You have to be careful when you call something like that a viable business model."
Music was created and the public was served, despite licenses designed to circumvent copy protection laws. This suggests that these laws aren't needed.
"I would expect you to get a really good overview of its market impact, value and profits it generates compare to investments. "
The laws shouldn't exist to help anyone make profits. The whole purpose of having an economy to begin with should is the production of goods and services. Music was created and the public was served. Profits is only secondary if even a concern at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So whats the plan then? Give up on recorded music all together? What will go into your iPod then? If the piece was released later, after the artist and venue cashed in (you are so a venue owner, aren't you? :), is the artist allowed to sell it? Does he get a say under what terms where and when or will you simply confiscate his goods like good old Stalin did?
"But once the piece of art goes to press (ie: released on CD or whatever) people should be free to make perfect copies, it's my right."
Only if you bought the original and live in a country where blank tape levy is in place. Almost everywhere else where the competent legislators do their job - that would be illegal. To do something thats not legal is not your right. Its your wrong.
Now lets get this "its my right to copy" out of the way. It is not your right unless the creator agrees with that. Its his work. If you hate him so much, then ignore him. If you like him enough to make copies, respect his views on copying.
But.. Here comes the surprise. Personally, I agree with you for different reasons. It should be your right to copy. We got a law, that states otherwise and we need to respect it for now. But the reason I think you got that right is simple math. If you add up all the money you give away for the internet xs, your PC/Mac thingy, your mp3/divx/DVD/what else playing gadgets, TB's of USB this and thats... then you deserve respect and gratitude for your financial contribution to the creative industry. It is not your fault if the guys running it cannot work out a deal on splitting the profits in a way that will include the artists. Its stupid for all of them, to demand money for the frame and give the paintings away for free.
They are slick, those money guys. They cut the artist out, start a war between him and his fans, sit their ass in the comfy leather chair and count the money. As long as we fight who got the right to what, they count the money and we get rights. Its that simple.
If you are passionate about art.. as a fan or as a creator (it doesn't really matter at all) you should try to stay in the same corner with the artists against the guy in the leather chair. Since neither you or the artists are powerful enough to do anything on your own, we need some proper copyright legislation to protect us all. If there was no copyright legislation, there would be no deal between the YouTube and French collective societies, representing the creators. Creators, not media corporations.
"No one deserves complete control over their works."
You forgive nothing, do you? :) What I meant was that Beethoven completely lost the control over his works. Even if that statement about complete control is a bit extreme, I agree with you. But once we give up the complete control over our property to benefit the society, let us all do it at once. Don't make the artists start and you will follow when ready. Treat me that free beer at your venue.. you are loaded anyways, right? :)
"Its awful to put up with them, but it would be even worse without them." (the gatekeepers)
We throw the word gatekeeper around a lot these days. They shouldn't be put in the same basket. Some provide news, some provide entertainment and some sell plastic boxes with mp3's that you can get for freeor half the price everywhere. Some are obsolete and some can still come handy.
I like to get my news from a "gatekeeper" that has an editor I can sew for deliberately presenting wrong facts, with competent crew of pro's that can afford proper and expert research. Ones who can't hide their financing sources, so I can understand where their views are coming from.
Its much better then getting news on a blog that has no public responsibility, that calls a cool and funny drummer who sells his CD's together with his car a mass business model of the future, and is financed by Samsung adds and 3Po gigs for naive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No one besides you said that. Stop making poor strawman arguments, it only makes you look dishonest. Your "no Ipod music" doomsday scenario isn't even close true and no one, including yourself, believes it to be true.
It's perfectly possible to publish the record a while after it's been released at an exclusive venue, just like it was back then.
"Does he get a say under what terms where and when or will you simply confiscate his goods like good old Stalin did?"
He can sell the first copy to a crowd or to whoever wants to buy it. Those who buy it can either give away more copies or sell more copies if they wish. and no one said anything about confiscating anything. Making copies of something released isn't confiscating. People will make music available on Ipod's and whatnot without copy protection laws. CC licenses is proof of that. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best. But IP maximists used to always argue that music will die without copy protection laws, and they don't anymore only because pointing out the existence CC licensed music has proved them wrong. You are intentionally being dishonest and you know it.
Once people who wish to give away perfect copies gets a hold of them then it's their right to do so and the artist should have no say otherwise. He can charge people up until that point. You may not like the business model but tough. It's not for the government to provide you with a business model.
"Only if you bought the original and live in a country where blank tape levy is in place. Almost everywhere else where the competent legislators do their job - that would be illegal. To do something thats not legal is not your right. Its your wrong. "
Yes, because competent politicians made copy protection privileges last 95+ years. Or, rather, it was competent lobbyists and their bought politicians. Who are you to define what constitutes a competent politician.
and to do something that's not legal may not be my legal right but that doesn't mean it's not my natural right. Laws do not dictate rights or ethics.
"Now lets get this "its my right to copy" out of the way."
Ok, it's my right to do what I please.
"It is not your right unless the creator agrees with that."
It is not the creators right to tell me what I can and can't copy.
"Its his work."
That he made and released voluntarily. It's his right not to make or release work. Once released, its my right to make copies.
"If you hate him so much, then ignore him."
If I hate him so much I want his work off of public airwaves or monopolized cableco infrastructure. It displaces other works. Keep his work on private property.
"If you like him enough to make copies, respect his views on copying."
I may like his work and not his views on copying. Don't tell me what to do.
"We got a law, that states otherwise and we need to respect it for now."
and I agree with this, but I will do everything in my power to change the laws.
"If you are passionate about art"
I am passionate about civil liberties and civil rights and ensuring that we don't live in a tyrant, plutocratic nation controlled by big corporations. We currently are heading in that direction and I want to stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed].
Breathtaking argument in a legislative debate. Can't go wrong with that one either :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course it's my natural right, preventing me from making a copy requires an institution and institutions do not exist in nature.
Also, we're not talking about what the law is, we're talking about what the law should be. This isn't a legislative debate, existing law is not the final arbitrator of what should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well I find this, and many other, blogs to be much better sources of information than many mainstream media outlets. The MSM is often dishonest and bias in favor of big corporations and their bias is very obvious. They get mad when people copy them (even if they cite their sources) yet the MSM copies others (often with no additional fact checking), such as bloggers, without even giving credit to those they copy. I see no reason to trust them, they have little credibility and they certainly have less credibility than MM who is far more willing to admit to mistakes when he makes them. These IP maximists are unwilling to publicly debate IP critics like MM and many others and they certainly won't put MM on the MSM to present his view or discuss the issue with IP proponents. I see no reason to take them seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
and many on Techdirt disagree with the non-commercial use CC licenses, but it's copyright that permits that."
Sure. Blame it on copyright :=). Actually, copyright permits legal airplay. Non-commercial CC doesn't. Thats CC getting caught in its own trap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
but copyprotections enable the IP holder to make airplay illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just so you know, this is 100% false. CC licenses don't restrict commercial use any more than a full copyright.
If a commercial radio station pays the statutory royalty rates to CC-NC artists (or to their PRO, if they're a member), they can play whatever -NC music they like. Exactly the same as they would have to under a full copyright.
Many CC artists are also members of BMI and ASCAP. That's probably why their music is -NC, in fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Check here (d.) : http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The reason the CC license is worded that way is because different jurisdictions have different licensing schemes. In fact, there are different licensing schemes here in the U.S. - ASCAP or BMI membership is optional, for example, as is licensing their music; SoundExchange is not.
But you miss the point. CC licenses are designed to be less restrictive than full copyright. Every possible restriction in a CC license (and more) is automatically granted to every artist. A CC license is a voluntary waiver of some of those rights.
And in any case, artists simply don't have the legal right to demand restrictions above and beyond what copyright law allows. A songwriter could make a license that says, "you must pay me $1000 per radio broadcast." A radio station could laugh, thumb its nose at the license, and pay the statutory fees - and there would be nothing the songwriter could do about it. That's why statutory fees exist, in fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
None of the examples you've cited depend on copyright to exist. On the other hand, the negative effects of those examples are still around, and have actually increased under copyright.
You can't say musicians are better off these days.
Define what you mean by "these days." Are you comparing today's artists with pre-copyright artists, like Beethoven? Or with artists from (let's say) the mid-1990's, before file sharing was widespread and impossible to control without a police state?
Either way, musicians are still better off. Not the ones that depend on royalties for their income (which is almost none of them), but the general set of all artists. If there is a "problem" with today's music scene, it's that there are too many artists, releasing too much music. We're suffering from a glut, not a drought.
Not as long as the studies you quote as proof, compensate losses in sales with income from the copyright.
None of the studies cited at Techdirt do any such thing.
Now, there are cases where one can earn "income from the copyright" without sales. Radio royalties, for instance, or licensing from "synchronization" to films or commercials. But there's a reason none of the studies take this into account - such income is never a significant part of a musician's income (even for Top 40 musicians). Musicians should seek to do this, of course, because it results in wider exposure, but it's a bad idea to plan on making that your primary source of income.
And by the way, sales royalties were never the primary source of income for artists, even before the internet came along. Most made their money touring, selling merch, doing endorsement deals, etc. None of which depend on copyright.
As for the "gatekeepers", I somewhat share my views with Andrew Keen. Its awful to put up with them, but it would be even worse without them.
It used to be, because the "gatekeepers" (publishers) had exclusive access to promotional and distribution channels. If you didn't work with them, you couldn't get on commercial radio, couldn't get into chain record stores (much less places like Best Buy), often couldn't play the larger venues, and couldn't appear on other media (either "synchronized" or directly). You wouldn't earn royalties from ASCAP or BMI (who nonetheless took money from the venues you played).
Thanks to the internet, that has changed. The things that allow piracy so be so widespread - the internet's openness and democracy - are the same things that allow musicians to route around those gatekeepers, and connect with fans directly.
Of course, musicians have been doing this for decades before the internet. The scenes I've been involved in - punk, metal, noise - all created vibrant scenes with zero help from major labels (and most, incidentally, involved the "piracy" of tape trading). The truly talented did better in these scenes than they would have on a major label, even without the radio play and so forth. The internet just makes it easier. So much easier, that even musicians on major labels are now jumping ship because they can do better on their own.
Through the concept of "equitable remuneration".
That's not what copyright is intended to do, and it's not really what copyright is actually doing. Copyright allows the copyright holders to set a "take it or leave it" price, regardless of whether it's "equitable" or not. It's exactly the opposite of a free market - in a free market, the consumer sets the demand curve, not the producer. It is a monopoly, plain and simple.
Techdirt recent posted an article ruminating on Thomas Macauley's speech objecting to lengthening copyright terms. In it, he gave an excellent summary of the negative effects of a monopoly:
the effect of monopoly generally is to make articles scarce, to make them dear, and to make them bad.
"Scarce, dear, and bad." Could there be a more perfect description of major label music?
Really? Most artists don't share such hugh opinion on "derivative works" with you. Plagiarism comes to mind. Besides. Most CC works hamper artistic production in the same way.
A "derivative work" is not the same as plagiarism. I believe it was originally meant to cover adaptations, but it certainly doesn't do so now.
You should also understand that "derivative" doesn't mean the same as "unoriginal." During the early grunge days, people thought Pearl Jam was "unoriginal," that they were "ripping off" early musicians in the scene. Yet they were guilty of breaking no copyright law.
On the other hand, artists seem to be perfectly fine with "remix culture." And many, many artists take samples of non-musical expressions (e.g. obscure film dialogue) and put it in their music. Remixes and re-contextualization are also a "derivative works." And they're potentially infringing.
I've had several friends whose albums could not get produced, because the pressing plants refused. They were covering their asses, and refused to press anything with any potentially infringing content, even when it was almost certainly fair use. That's what's known in free speech circles as a "chilling effect."
I agree with you about the -ND restriction, by the way. I think they're shooting themselves in the foot. But that's their choice.
45K free downloads since July 2009? No legal airplay, because of CC limitations? You have to be careful when you call something like that a viable business model.
You say "45K free downloads" as if their bank account shrunk with each new listener.
If a radio station isn't allowed to play CC-NC music, they're not allowed to play fully copyrighted music, either. CC is less restrictive, even for businesses, than a full copyright. (In fact, I believe that's why artists release their music with -NC restrictions: they want to collect royalties.)
I don't think it's a "viable business model," I think it's the foundation for a viable business model. It could be successful, or it could fail. Just like running a search engine won't automatically make you Google.
Here's the question: Is that band making more money than they would have if they'd been limited to the old label system? I'd say the answer is "yes." Because under the label system, they would never have been signed, never have gotten exposure, never got any kind of endorsement deal. They wouldn't have earned any money whatsoever.
"Toy industry" probably didn't consider the production of plastic round things made back in 1950's a great business model just because Hula Hoops became popular again.
If you think the internet can be compared to a fad like Hula Hoops, then I'm afraid there's no hope for you.
Well, at least you agree that ACTA sucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I've been a studio rat/producer for ages. Since 80's or so. You know how you can tell that the music production is going downhill? Good recording studios are closing all over the place. You could argue that we don't need them anymore, since we can do what they used to do on a laptop with the firewire thingy these days. But thats not true. You will always need a proper (expensive) recording&monitoring room, bunch of high end mics and some high end analogue gear to get the live drum set, orhestra or a choir sound right. Anyone can glue few samples together in an excel like app and call it a remix, but I can't see the future in that sort of recylcing alone.
I get to work with many different artists from all over. Most will tell you, that their labels gave up financing music production after the CD sales dropped. Most labels and artists will blame the piracy for it. No sales=no investments= no promotion=no airplay=no gigs. Its all linked that way in the mainstream area. There is a lot of great activity outside the mainstream area, sure, but the same rules apply there even harder. Money makes the world go around.
Sure, oldtime labels did nothing that your average loan shark wouldn't do, when it comes to financing an album. But…er.. (I hate my boss as much as the next guy).. they did get the promotion and the distribution part down right sometimes. And you could find a few, that have actually treated the artist fair. Almost. Close to.
»Such income is never a significant part of a musician's income (even for Top 40 musicians).«
I fear the problem is elsewhere. That type of income only supports top 40 musicians. Make that top 200. The rest usually complain about their collective organisations. Collective organisations are an alternative to ACTA. But to make them that, they will need to be far more transparent and efficient and under constant, unforgiving public supervision.
»Copyright allows the copyright holders to set a "take it or leave it" price, regardless of whether it's "equitable" or not.«
Naw. Sorry. That simply isn't true.
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/radio/FeeMethodology.pdf
http://www.gema.de/uploads/tx_mmsdownload s/gema_tarif_radio.pdf
»In a free market, the consumer sets the demand curve, not the producer«
Consumer turns on the radio..thats the demand. Producer sets price and adjusts it to the demand, together with the content provider. Its business like any other, only a little less fair to the content creator, who can't set the price to his work individually. He is forced to accept the minimum vages, depending on collective organisations distribution rules. Ontop of that, the price of all the works is set by the content providers business success.
»You say "45K free downloads" as if their bank account shrunk with each new listener.«
It sure didn't climb to 45k downloads at $1 per track. Charity is not a business model for adults.
And that is the whole point. Internet is about information and communication in the first place. In that respect, it should be kept free and uncontrolled. There is no reason to ever change that.
The sad part is, that it is also a completely unregulated »file market« too. You may be an idealist and demand that the »files« stay free forever, but that would not be a part of the world we live in. It already isn't. There is no such thing as a »free« file. We only need to balance the split of profits.
»File market« will be regulated to become an actual market where all players do business under equally fair terms. Legislation must provide for that.
It may be done with the usual – free is free/pay to own the stuff thats not free/steal and go to jail. In that case we get ACTA and COICA and Google as music industry leader (and they got enough private data from us by now, to actualy enforce such legislation).
On the other hand, the same could be achieved through a more social model, e.g. collective copyright management with some sort of culture flat rate/global license solution accompanied by blank tape levy tax.
To expect anything but one of those two choices in the near future would be naive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This sounds good! So good I think we should apply it to every occupation.
Why shouldn't I get paid even if the levy was applied and used for something I didn't do? Like making a picture slide show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It does, doesn't it? :) You contribute to the society and it pays you back only a fraction of income generated with the use of your work. The rest goes to the social services. And then this huge soc-realist labor office pays you a sum, calculated on equal basis for everyone. Hmm.. Dam, that sound familiar. Hey.. Its communism all over!?
Thats why a serious money making guy wouldn't want to hear of it. He wants to generate some proper profit individually, under his own terms, in the dark, to get rich the way the rich people get rich.
Ask that state, comrade, what the value of your slide show is. I got no say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That doesn't mean that less music (or worse music) is being produced; it means that the legacy industries are going under. That's what happens when industries undergo a dramatic shift in a short time.
You will always need a proper (expensive) recording&monitoring room, bunch of high end mics and some high end analogue gear to get the live drum set, orhestra or a choir sound right.
All these things make the recording better. The question is whether that better sound justifies the price. Usually it doesn't. Studios like that only made money because of the "golden ticket" model - the only way to make any money was to produce a mega-hit, so no expense was spared to make it even a tiny bit better. It also meant that artists using those studios were usually screwed, because 90% of them could never pay back the astronomical recording fees that the labels made them pay.
In other words, they're going under because there's a more level playing field, and 90% of musicians simply don't need those kinds of studios. Tough titties. That's the free market at work.
Most [artists] will tell you, that their labels gave up financing music production after the CD sales dropped. Most labels and artists will blame the piracy for it.
That's just one more reason to not work with a label. It's not the music industry that's suffering; it's the recording industry - that is, legacy labels. And they're not going under because of piracy. They're going under because of their outright refusal to enter the digital market; dumping mom-and-pop record stores to deal exclusively with the likes of Best Buy; the fact that CD's are an outdated media (they're older now than VHS was when DVD's replaced them); increased competition from video games, DVD's, and other (legal) entertainment; people not "re-buying" their vinyl on CD; and the massive public backlash against "anti-piracy" lawsuits.
They're going under because they are, and always were, terrible businessmen - like all rent seekers are. Don't blame the pirates, blame Edgar Bronfmann Jr.
Of course, no label will ever admit that it's their fault they're going under. So they use "piracy" as a convenient scapegoat. And unfortunately, many artists believe them.
That type of income [royalties] only supports top 40 musicians. Make that top 200. The rest usually complain about their collective organisations.
So what makes you think a new PRO would turn out any differently? SoundExchange isn't exactly a model of fairness, and it's a non-profit regulated by the government.
Naw. Sorry. That simply isn't true.
Point taken about statutory rates. However, whether set by the government or the content providers, it's still not "equitable," because in no case is the price set by consumer demand.
Consumer turns on the radio..thats the demand.
Consumer downloads MP3's rather than buying a CD... that's the demand. Welcome to an unregulated free market.
You want to get consumers to part with their hard-earned cash? Offer them something that they can't get from The Pirate Bay. It really is that simple.
(And don't get me started on radio... this post is long enough.)
He is forced to accept the minimum vages, depending on collective organisations distribution rules. Ontop of that, the price of all the works is set by the content providers business success.
Yet another reason to stop working with these "content providers" or "collective organisations." Seriously, no artist has to do that anymore. They're better off if they don't.
It sure didn't climb to 45k downloads at $1 per track. Charity is not a business model for adults.
If they didn't offer it for free on Jamendo, there's no way in Hell 45K people would have paid $1 per track. More like, 450 downloads at $1 each, and 4500 downloads from The Pirate Bay. So they "lost," at most, a couple hundred dollars.
But in doing so, they turned tens of thousands of people from curious onlookers into fans. They were able to leverage that fan base into endorsement deals (which, alone, netted them more than a couple hundred I'm sure). They now have more people who are willing to show up for their gigs, and buy their merch. I'm betting that the albums that are not available for free, also got a significant bump in sales - even though they're probably available on torrent sites.
So no, charity is not a business model. Good thing it's not charity.
Internet is about information and communication in the first place. In that respect, it should be kept free and uncontrolled.
You act like music and video are not "information and communication." What makes them different than, say, words on an author's blog post, or JPEG images that a photographer took? Are you "pro-piracy" when it comes to words and images? Are you saying authors and photographers shouldn't get paid?
If I'm to expect a kickback every time someone listens to one of my songs, why shouldn't I get a kickback every time someone reads this comment?
There is no such thing as a "free" file. We only need to balance the split of profits.
All of the files I've downloaded recently have been free (usually open source or CC), or I paid someone to get them (Amazon) or view them (Netflix), or they've been my own files. How is inserting a billion-dollar bureaucracy in the middle going to help anyone? How could these profits ever be split fairly, without infringing on the privacy rights of every internet user?
On the other hand, the same could be achieved through a more social model, e.g. collective copyright management with some sort of culture flat rate/global license solution accompanied by blank tape levy tax.
That's been tried in other countries, and is a dismal failure. All it does is jack up the price for "licensed" media (in Canada, roughly 75% of the cost of a blank CD goes to record labels), but that money never seems to reach the artists themselves.
All legislation will do is funnel money from consumers, artists, and ISP's into the hands of legacy media industries, who will take the money and run.
And, of course, it will put iTunes, Amazon Music, eMusic, etc. out of business. You'll be destroying successful businesses solely to prop up unsuccessful businesses. Ones which consistently screw over artists and consumers. All for something that won't result in artists getting paid anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, for accuracy's sake I should have said this: "Consumer downloads MP3's, but doesn't buy a CD." Most likely, the consumer wouldn't have bought a CD in any case.
Because - let's face it - CD's are terrible. Whenever I buy one, I just rip it to my hard drive, and the CD sits on the shelf untouched.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It looks like this is mainly the doing of the conservatives and the Christian Democrats (who in my estimation are neither Christians nor Democrats, but certainly have the vices of both).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes. Good one. Very funny.
Hey. I'm in a good mood today: http://bit.ly/e9RTlL :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes. Kinda sounds like the alcohol commercials:
"Please drink responsibly."
"Hey. I'm in a good mood today: http://bit.ly/e9RTlL :)"
I am already tired of paying artists for me to use Linux and back-up my PC data files. I am creating and they are getting paid.
No thank-you.
[ 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:
http://www.stratigery.com/source.html
Those programs are of interest to only a very small audience. The transaction costs prevent me from selling it to the 20 or 30 people worldwide who care.
But the fact remains that the programs are out there, people who care can find them and use them. That's of value to me, personally.
Your strict-control, "intellectual property" regime would essentially prevent me from giving my programs for free to the 30 people who are interested. That would be a tragedy in my view. Now, multiply that times however many 10s of thousands of people in my category (http://sourceforge.net, http://belios.de, and many others), and your strict control would be an intellectual tragedy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To all of us, I guess. Thank you.:)
Copyright never interfered with the distribution of works, that were ment to be used without any limitations. It eventually sets every work to public domain, after the exploatation period is over.
On the other hand, copyright should protect the creator and his works from illegal use. The kind he disagrees with? The right of the creator, to make his work available to public under his own terms should be a fundamental human right. It is at places (again, depending on jurisdiction).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, where's the hidden advertising in my .txt file download of Shakespeare's works? Try as I might, I can't find a single word that says I should buy anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That file doesn't "generate income" for my ISP, any more than drug dealing "generated income" for beeper companies (and besides, more data equals less profits for ISP's). I didn't buy my computer to read text files, I bought it to produce music and to write code. And there are no banner ads at Project Gutenberg.
So: you fail.
But let's say that, instead, I bought a Dover paperback edition of King Lear. What's wrong with that? They invested time and money in marginal (printing) costs, and I willingly paid their asking price for a copy, even though I could have got the same text from a dozen other publishers.
That's called "competition." It's what a free market is all about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Invention of Writing ? No copyright. Newton's works about gravity ? No copyright. Descartes, Kepler, Marie Curie, Einstein, etc... ---> no copyright. Christmas songs, children songs, children school games, cooking recipes etc... ---> no copyright.
THIS is the way the humanity makes progress. Knowledge, culture and science must not belong to someone in particular, it must be everybody's heritage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]