David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
from the more-people-figuring-it-out dept
Award-winning musician/DJ/producer David Guetta seems to have figured out that "free" is not a bad thing. In a recent interview, he notes that he's never worried about "piracy" at all, and that the solution is just to give away stuff for free to keep an audience engaged and to offer more opportunities to continue to build your fan base:"I have never been very nervous about online pir�acy," the Daily Star quotes him as saying.Plenty of others have made this realization as well, but it's nice to see stars with as big a name as Guetta saying it publicly as well.
"Sometimes you have to give away content, even if it isn't bringing you money. It doesn't have to be music, it can be videos, images and so on."
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: david guetta, free, piracy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Tiesto/David Guetta
8/14/10 Hallenstadion, Zurich
1 show
Sold out
14,500 tickets sold
Average ticket price: $84.38
Gross: $1,223,520
Total chump change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
By the way, as someone who has been in the entertainment business for a decade, 'show gross' never translates to artist cut. I would estimate he made 90K that night personally after all expenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the other hand, allowing them to download the music for free serves as an excellent form of promotion, since there is less of a risk in downloading the tracks. If you don't like them, delete them, and you've lost nothing, save for perhaps some monthly bandwidth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mea culpa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
By the way, as someone who has been in the entertainment business for a decade, 'show gross' never translates to artist cut. I would estimate he made 90K that night personally after all expenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As for the rest of your comment, I'm not sure if it's missing a sarcasm tag but just in case I'll respond... so what? If you're not trying to sell something that people are willing to pay for, that's your fault for having a bad business model. I'm certainly not going to cry about people being forced to work for a living because they're trying to get income from a system that's effectively unworkable.
Meanwhile, I'll happily continue to pay the artists who are living in the modern era and adapted to the modern marketplace...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
These people that are calling themselves 'artists' are essentially throwing tantrums because they think that they're entitled to make a living doing what they love.
News Flash: You do what you love because you love to do it. End of story. Most people work a day job, and then do what they love in their spare time. I've got zero sympathy for snivelers who cry about not making a mint from their art, or actually having to work to make money from their talent, just like everyone else does.
I'll tell you what, it takes talent and work to earn money in sales. It takes talent and work to earn money in customer service. It takes talent and work to earn money as a mechanic. It takes talent and work to earn money as a blogger. It takes talent and work to earn money in every single industry, including music and art.
You can make all the art you want without getting paid for it. A monetary exchange that benefits the artist isn't necessary for the artist to create art. Look at the countless number of artists who didn't make money from their art in their lifetimes, and only gained recognition after their deaths.
Let me be clear: The unwillingness of the public to support artists has never stopped the creation of art, and never will.
If you want to create art, create it. If you want to share your art, share it. If you want to make money, make it. You don't automatically deserve money from me just because you created art and shared it. The end. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We can see every comment you've made as The Infamous Joe. However, how do we know which comments you may have made under other names?
We cannot with you.
Well, technically, you can. You just don't know which ones they are. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
3DMagix and IllusionMage, scam or open source leeches?
Quote:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Glenn Beck, is that you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That untalented hack Nina Paley once compared piracy with freeing the slaves from the South.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Unfortunately, I'm not surprised that you think that's a valid form of debate. Fits in with your M.O. here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nonetheless, the OP is doing a good job of demonstrating how silly Masnick's rabid piracy apologism is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you really do work in the industry as you often claim, it might be nice to get an insider's perspective on the actual points being raised, for once...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But every time it's about copyright or the lawsuits there-of, you're the one who comes in flinging wildly accusation posts about things you have never backed up with actual fact.
You're a troll. You have brought no value to conversation. You have nothing worthwhile to say. You do nothing but insult anyone who disagrees with you. Why are you here? Are you bored? Lonely? Did a pirate board your ship and make you walk the plank in a past life? I think I can safely elevate you above Jack Thompson on the list of ridiculously-personal crusades.
And the sad part? The windmills are winning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Woe is me, woe is the artist, woe is the world!!
Oh wait, never mind, woe is the untalented middleman - who gives a flying f*ck that those without talent don't get paid!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nina responded to the question "Name another business model that allowed itself to be ruined by illegal behavior." with the answer "Slavery." Which is true.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101220/00032812332/piracy-isnt-problem-bad-business-mode l-is-problem.shtml#c807
You can see for yourself that Nina did not compare piracy to slavery, but only named another business model ruined by illegal behavior.
I am sure you really don't care what was actually said and will continue to spin untruths just to portray this whole site as "Freetard Apologists"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then TAM et al can call us immature for pointing out their immaturity and stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the day that it becomes possible to be raped by someone 5000 miles away without even being aware that it has happened is the day when that comment will become sensible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In the spirit of Masnick and about 9000 of his techdirt cheerleaders, a nice way to combat this is by handing out the wallet and bank account password to everyone who asks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The unknowingly ignorant
the knowingly ignorant
the unknowingly smart
the knowingly smart.
I peg you at the second option.
You know that you are ignorant, and you bask in it.
Because you are deliberately ignoring what we are saying. We keep saying that you can't compare non-scarce goods (like digital downloads) with scarce goods (like cars and cds and purses and tvs and bank account information, and pin numbers and wallets).
And that this can't be the same as theft, as copyright infringement is treated differently in the lawbooks. In fact, one is a criminal offense (theft), and the other is a civil offense (copyright infringement).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'll take either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyway, specifically, his comment:
1. Assumes that everyone can consent, which is absolutely not true. (Take children, some cognitively impaired adults, and coma victims, for example.)
2. Assumes that strangers are the potential rapists, even though people are three times more likely to be raped by someone they know than a stranger, and nine times more likely to be raped in their home, the home of someone they know, or anywhere else than being raped on the street.
3. Diminishes the gravity of sexual assault by using the word 'rape' to describe something other than a forced or coerced sex act.
And kudos to you for asking, instead of just assuming that since you don't personally understand it yet, I'm wrong. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. Assumes that everyone can consent, which is absolutely not true. (Take children, some cognitively impaired adults, and coma victims, for example.)
I think his error there is more along the lines of "terrible analogy" rather than "promoting rape culture". Unless you believe one is the other, in which case I grant you the point here.
2. Assumes that strangers are the potential rapists, even though people are three times more likely to be raped by someone they know than a stranger, and nine times more likely to be raped in their home, the home of someone they know, or anywhere else than being raped on the street.
So it's more about ignorance or slips of the tongue? For example, he could have said "and the way to stop rape is to have sex with anyone who wants to". Would that have removed his statement from "rape culture" back into "bad analogy" territory, at least for #2?
3. Diminishes the gravity of sexual assault by using the word 'rape' to describe something other than a forced or coerced sex act.
How so? He appears (to me) to have used the word "rape" to mean actual rape. I don't think he meant it in a colloquial non-literal sense, such as "and the way to stop [gamers from pwning each other online] is to have sex with anyone who asks" or "and the way to stop [systematic environmental destruction] is to have sex with anyone who asks".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, I have to say that criticism of art isn't exactly throwing a gauntlet for battle, so with the second comic and everything they did afterward, they were picking up a nonexistent and imaginary gauntlet, which was really a bad idea. But I agree that the second comic (and everything that followed), was really the 'oil on fire' bit. The first comic was cringe-worthy, but the rest was crap.
I think his error there is more along the lines of "terrible analogy" rather than "promoting rape culture". Unless you believe one is the other, in which case I grant you the point here.
The fact that he can make that terrible error in a culture where so many people have experienced sexual assault is, in fact, a tenet of rape culture. So it's not an either/or situation. His statement is an example rape culture and terrible analogies, lol.
So it's more about ignorance or slips of the tongue?
Rape culture is about both. We aren't ignorant about murder or theft. Actually, we think more of murder and theft than we actually should, statistically. When people have 'slips of the tongue' about theft (especially vs. piracy), people jump on them for them. Rape? Not so much. I was surprised and heartened to see it happen here, although that's probably more of a 'logic' thing than a 'we actually care about rape' thing. (I'll take it how I can get it, though.)
For example, he could have said "and the way to stop rape is to have sex with anyone who wants to". Would that have removed his statement from "rape culture" back into "bad analogy" territory, at least for #2?
Again, that's assuming that everyone can consent, and rape only happens to people who can otherwise consent. Millions of Americans raped as children can tell you that's not the case. I guess he could have said:
'And the way to stop the rape of cognitively able adults would be for them to enthusiastically agree to have sex with every other cognitively able adult who wanted to.'
In which case it would have been a terrible, illogical analogy. Of course, someone who's spent that much time understanding the reality of rape isn't even going to make a stupid analogy like that, so there's that as well.
He appears (to me) to have used the word "rape" to mean actual rape.
Yes, in the inference that rape is analogous to piracy. (Or theft, maybe?) In other words, he's using the word 'rape' to describe an act that isn't even grave enough to be described by the word 'theft' by most people.
Again, comparing sexual assault to even actual theft and finding them to be equal is a part of rape culture, because it pretends that having your mp3 downloaded or your laptop stolen is as bad as being raped. It's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, but people are rarely so specific about their wording, even when they aren't using the word rape. If he had said, "And the solution to murder is to let every stranger who wants to kill you do so", would that promote a "murder culture", if (hypothetically) you could point to a statistic that said most murders are committed by non-strangers?
Yes, in the inference that rape is analogous to piracy.
Eh, I don't think he was saying the two were equally heinous crimes or otherwise morally equivalent. If I understood his terrible analogy, it was that giving in willingly to a problem is not a solution to the problem. He just chose rape as his particular example. He could have chosen anything from petty theft (popular with the IP crowd, for sure) to murder.
I guess I don't really understand where a good portion of the outrage comes from, since it doesn't seem to target what I would consider to be the core issue. If you asked me to define "rape culture", I would say it's a cultural disposition toward making rape "normal" or otherwise "not that bad".
So if you make a joke that laughs about rape, that would qualify (PA's first comic did not do this, but you could argue their second did). Or if you used the word to describe something not related in any way, such as "DUDE! Did you see that shot? I just totally RAPED you! HURR DURR!", then you are guilty of attempting to change and soften the meaning of the word.
(Under the above definition, and assuming that what we know of Assange's accuser is correct, and it may or may not be, it's very likely I could find her guilty her of promoting "rape culture" by attempting to subvert and twist the word for her own use.)
Maybe I'm off base, but I'm sure you'll correct me. =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, when people are talking about piracy, they often use the word theft and sometimes rape, but never murder. Why is that? (Answer: We live in a rape culture.)
...would that promote a "murder culture"...
Possibly. Some argue that Americans do have a 'murder' culture, although I don't know much about that.
He just chose rape as his particular example. He could have chosen anything from petty theft (popular with the IP crowd, for sure) to murder.
Yes, he could have chosen anything else, but he didn't. Unless you think that words have no meaning, then his choice of words matters.
I guess I don't really understand where a good portion of the outrage comes from...
What outrage? Again, a critique of something isn't always, or even usually, prompted by anger or rage.
...since it doesn't seem to target what I would consider to be the core issue.
I don't believe that there is a single core issue that defines a rape culture.
If you asked me to define "rape culture", I would say it's a cultural disposition toward making rape "normal" or otherwise "not that bad".
You'd be wrong, largely because that definition assumes that a rape culture is something that we're moving toward, as opposed to something that already exists.
However, if you said that it's a cultural disposition that reaffirms that rape is normal or otherwise not that bad, I might agree with you. :)
Of course, even by your definition, his comment was still an example of rape culture, because rape is generally an acceptable analogy but Nazism is not. Ergo, rape is normal or otherwise not that bad, when compared to Nazism.
So if you make a joke that laughs about rape, that would qualify (PA's first comic did not do this, but you could argue their second did).
Okay, so PA felt it was okay to create a post that mimics something that actually happens in real life with the implication that it was funny, but that's not a joke that laughs about rape?
I don't believe that it was intentional, but arguing that it's not a rape joke because they didn't intend for it to be a rape joke doesn't work. I mean, if you accidentally step on someone's foot, you can't say that you didn't actually step on their foot, right?
(The fact that they didn't realize that it happens every day, in real life, was also an example of rape culture.)
Regardless, I'm not any more irked about the first comic than I was about what followed, which was willful and intentional and shitty. Which is why I no longer read PA.
...if you used the word to describe something not related in any way, such as "DUDE! Did you see that shot? I just totally RAPED you! HURR DURR!", then you are guilty of attempting to change and soften the meaning of the word.
I agree that the above sentence was promoting a rape culture, but that doesn't excuse less obvious examples.
(Under the above definition, and assuming that what we know of Assange's accuser is correct, and it may or may not be, it's very likely I could find her guilty her of promoting "rape culture" by attempting to subvert and twist the word for her own use.)
Hehe, this is a whole thing. There are two women involved, one possible broken condom, one possible act began while one person was asleep and unable to consent, one possible lie, two possible acts of revenge.
Assuming what we know is true, nothing happened at all. You know, since we have no idea what actually happened, and no conclusive proof for Assange or either of the women.
Assuming what we've heard is true, Assange is a rapist, one or both of the women are CIA plants, the women just wanted him to take an STD test and the Swedes decided to make them press charges, and the charges were a revenge move by one or both women.
Maybe I'm off base, but I'm sure you'll correct me. =)
Hey, you asked what I meant. I didn't just randomly correct something you said. :P
And just out of curiosity, did you read Rape Culture 101?
[ 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:
Piracy is usually described as theft outright. I've never seen someone assert piracy as the equivalent of rape (an analogy doesn't apply equivalence). I'll keep a lookout, but I actually don't expect such a thing to be prevalent at all. Maybe I'm wrong and just haven't noticed.
Possibly. Some argue that Americans do have a 'murder' culture, although I don't know much about that.
Actually, I would argue that in fact we do have a "murder" culture. Or at least a violence one. Rape, for all its misuses, is rarely portrayed as a good thing, but killing is practically our national entertainment these days. Even so, I wouldn't say that someone making an analogy that happens to use murder is evidence of it.
Yes, he could have chosen anything else, but he didn't.
The problem is that its very easy to get selection bias. All the times someone uses "rape" stand out to you, but not the times they use some other crime. They could be choosing what word to use with a dice roll and it would still appear that the use of "rape" is all over the place if that's all you're looking for.
but that's not a joke that laughs about rape
The joke wasn't about rape. It was about how shallow our online heroics are, even though we are told of the horrible things that befall the people we leave behind. "Rape" in this context was used as "very bad thing that should make you want to save the rest if you had an ounce of the heroic in you". I would argue that its use in this context is exactly the right way to use it.
I'll leave off any more judgement on the Assange thing until something concrete happens, I guess.
And just out of curiosity, did you read Rape Culture 101?
I was at work for my last post, but I read it now. It's very well written. I can't help but think, however, that while I agree that rape is a terrible problem and that we may indeed have an issue with "rape culture", as it stands now, it seems to be very ill-defined and the debate has been punctuated with "us or them" rhetoric and a big case of confirmation bias.
Talking about rape in a way that offends somebody promotes rape culture. Not talking about rape promotes rape culture. Disagreeing with the blog writer on the bounds of the issue makes you a part of rape culture. It's really hard to have a discussion when someone starts off by demanding that you agree with them before you can talk.
I think if the issue is to really gain traction, there has to be a more vigorous, inclusive debate about what's really a problem and what's just a red herring that will turn away potential allies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Neither is it portrayed as a particularly bad thing. Generally, it's an ambiguous thing, to be blamed on the victim's habits, clothing, sexual history, etc., even if it's the rape of a minor, videotaped and plastered on the Internet.
...killing is practically our national entertainment these days.
And rape isn't? Even if it weren't for the prevalence of rape in books, television, and movies, I'd be able to say that it counts as entertainment just from the sheer numbers of people that are raping other people.
..."rape culture", as it stands now, it seems to be very ill-defined...
Rape culture is a term used to describe a culture in which rape and other sexual violence are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media condone, normalize, excuse, or encourage sexualized violence.
I don't see that definition as confusing or ambiguous. Do you? I also don't see how you could argue that it doesn't describe the culture that we live in.
Talking about rape in a way that offends somebody promotes rape culture.
I don't see that this statement is true. Can you explain further? I mean, I offend people frequently when I talk about rape, and that's not an example of rape culture.
I'd also like to point out that being a part of a rape culture doesn't make everyone morally equivalent with a rapist. Only a rapist is morally equivalent to a rapist.
Sometimes people new to the idea feel offended and subsequently reject it not because it doesn't exist, but because the idea of rape culture means that they're a part of it, and of course, they couldn't be a party to rape. No way.
But I think you're smart enough to skip that particular trap.
Not talking about rape promotes rape culture.
Yes. Not talking about the reality that 1 in 6 American women have been raped is absolutely a part of rape culture.
How many women do you know? Think about it. Count it out, and then divide by six. That's how many women you know that have been raped.
For an even more disturbing number, count how many women are in your family. Divide by six. That's how many women in your family have been raped.
Or how many women you've seriously dated and care for. Divide by six. That's how many of them have been raped.
The general reaction I see from people when presented with this statistic is disbelief. Then it moves to denial, and they usually want to explain why rape really doesn't happen very often, and how women and children are usually lying, why rape in prison doesn't count as rape (Because it's expected, apparently?), and how the victim could have avoided being raped.
Disagreeing with the blog writer on the bounds of the issue makes you a part of rape culture.
Well, sure, why not? I once read an account of Heinlein's trip through Soviet Russia. One of the guides refused to admit that a part of Russia had once been another country. According to the guide, it had always been Russia. Refusing to admit that the boundaries of Russia had changed made the guide a part of the Communist culture. He was perfectly willing to disbelieve the existence of that earlier country and to ignore his own earlier experience with Russian geography in order to keep his head in the ground.
It's really hard to have a discussion when someone starts off by demanding that you agree with them before you can talk.
If you want to have a discussion about whether or not rape culture exists on that particular blog, then yes, it does. However, that particular blog doesn't exists to discuss that topic (although there are many others do, and I'd be happy to track a few down if you're interested).
Again, to use another Heinlein analogy, in Puppet Masters, a government agency has discovered that aliens are attaching themselves to human beings and puppeting (sp?) them. The main characters want to discuss an action plan with Congress. Congress wants to debate the existence of the aliens. It's awfully hard to discuss an an action plan with people who aren't yet ready to concede the existence of the aliens, and it's awfully hard to debate the existence of aliens with people who had seen and been puppeted by them.
That particular blog wants to discuss an action plan. You still want to debate the existence. The difference is that, in this case, this doesn't close off a discussion of rape culture. It only closes it off on that particular blog, which is one of many, many bus stops on the blogosphere. :P
I think if the issue is to really gain traction, there has to be a more vigorous, inclusive debate about what's really a problem and what's just a red herring that will turn away potential allies.
There are many, many vigorous, inclusive debates about the problems inherent in a rape culture. There are even debates about whether or not we live in a rape culture. Potential allies should visit those sites if they want to join in on the discussion. You know, Google is out there. Use it. Educate yourself.
Really, I only sent you that particular link because your posts are smart and usually logical. In general, that blog is like an advanced course, and I don't think that you've even had the beginner's course yet, but logic and intelligence will get you far on any topic, even one as loaded as this once.
Anyway, if you're interested in exploring the question of whether or nor a rape culture exists, I encourage you to follow the links in that post. It will take time. Probably alot of it.
But it will be worth it, if only to debunk the next me that comes along. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whether you call it rape culture or not doesn't matter, the fact is that a awful lot of men are violent to women and the only ones who stand a chance of changing that in our lifetime are other men. Saying 'rape is bad' is redundant but too many men seem to think that is where their responsibility ends. Until men stop making fun of feminists and joking about rape then they haven't even approached responsible. When they become feminists and start treating sexism like a cancer then they've started living up to their responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
^^ This. Thank you. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hehe, I'm very new to explaining rape culture to people who are privileged enough not to have the personal experiences that prove it's real. I tried looking for a Rape Culture 101 type thing written by or for a guy, but couldn't find one. :/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure they even mention the term rape culture, but I can recommend two books by Shira Tarrant: Men and Feminism and Men Speak Out: Views on Gender Sex and Power. The first is a kind of primer on the subject of men and feminism and the second is a collection of narratives written by men who identify as feminists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Traveled here after the "Favorite stories of the week" post and damn, Rose, you're waaaay to smart to make such a statistcally invalid claim. The 1/6 rape victim number is shocking to me and I'm having trouble believing it's true, but assuming it is, I'll just about gurantee you that the avg. TD reader isn't experiencing that number. Just think of all the socio-economic factors involved....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're too smart to knock my stats without even reviewing my data, yet here you are. :)
As for my stats, they're from a study by the National Institute of Justice.
The 1/6 rape victim number is shocking to me and I'm having trouble believing it's true...
Yes, because we live in a rape culture.
I'll just about gurantee you that the avg. TD reader isn't experiencing that number.
The average Techdirt reader is male, so no, he's not experiencing that number. He's experiencing a number closer to 1 in 31.
Just think of all the socio-economic factors involved....
By 'socio-economic', do you mean 'poor'? If so, you might find it interesting to note that the NIJ found college women to be particularly at risk for sexual assault. Another study that I can find, if you like, notes the high risk of rape in the military, as well, which is another place that the particularly poor don't go.
Of course, you totes may have meant something else. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, you ended up agreeing w/me on my problem w/your assertion, so I guess I am smart enough TO do that ;)....
"Yes, because we live in a rape culture."
Well, I'll certainly give the link a look when I get home, but all evidence suggests that virtually EVERY type of violent crime has been receding for the last twenty years or so, so would that indicate that the "Rape Culture" is actually receding?
"The average Techdirt reader is male, so no, he's not experiencing that number. He's experiencing a number closer to 1 in 31."
Ding ding ding! Dark Helmet, right again!
"By 'socio-economic', do you mean 'poor'? If so, you might find it interesting to note that the NIJ found college women to be particularly at risk for sexual assault. Another study that I can find, if you like, notes the high risk of rape in the military, as well, which is another place that the particularly poor don't go."
Oooooh, I'm cool with the first half and absolutely see the logic in it, but the second half not so much. Are you REALLY postulating that the backgrounds of the military as a whole are not those of a decidedly lower income tax bracket than the average American? Because methinks that would be a VERY bad position to take....
Also, I was thinking more of all the rape/sexual assault that likely occurs in lower socio-economic classes on children/minors. I'll have to look up stats to see if it's correct, but I'm guessing you'll find more molestation for instance in the rural south and/or urban poor compared with middle-class suburbia....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rape is a perpetually under-reported crime, so it's hard to say for sure... But I sincerely hope so.
Ding ding ding! Dark Helmet, right again!
Hehe, yes, you were right, but I wasn't wrong. :)
Are you REALLY postulating that the backgrounds of the military as a whole are not those of a decidedly lower income tax bracket than the average American? Because methinks that would be a VERY bad position to take....
I guess that would depend on your definition of 'average'. My position is based on
a. personal experience and
b. the fact that, until recently, the military was able to pick and choose candidates from applicants that were required to have high school diplomas.
Since children from low-income families are
a. less likley to have diplomas and
b. less likely to pass their ASVAB with an acceptable score,
I think it's safe to postulate that more military personnel come from middle class families than from lower class families.
However, I'd be willing to change that position if I saw any hard data.
Also, I was thinking more of all the rape/sexual assault that likely occurs in lower socio-economic classes on children/minors.
I wouldn't take the position that rape occurs more often to children in lower-income families, and the idea that rape is something that happens to poor people is in itself a rape culture trope.
But, again, hard data might change my opinion about that.
I'll have to look up stats to see if it's correct, but I'm guessing you'll find more molestation for instance in the rural south and/or urban poor compared with middle-class suburbia....
I'd be really interested to see stats that come to that (or any other) conclusion, so please post it if you find any. :)
[ 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:
Just to clarify, the issue I was hinting at with my earlier post has nothing to do with the absolute numbers involved, but the statements that one in any six women in the US is likely to be a rape victim.
For example, take a hypothetical country with a population of 600 women. In that country there are six states, each with a population of 100 women. In one of those states the number of victims is 100% of the population, or simply 100. The statistic for the country is one in six women is a rape victim, but five out of the six states have no reported rapes.
While obviously that is an important technical point, there are also reasons why it's an important point for the issue of combating rape. The idea of one in six women close to them being victims may seem unrealistic to people, making the factual evidence less credible to them. It suggests the rape rate is equal across all populations, which ignores places where rape has been effectively reduced or where rape is most problematic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, wait, I see. Because you're a complete douchebag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I see. You're an ignorant douchebag. But do come back when you get a clue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's as illogical as your analogy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, possibly, you should grow up and quit saying stupid shit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rape = Piracy
1. Rape is a crime that is defined not by some "thing" that is "stolen," but as an attack on a person, more similar in spirit to assault or murder than nonviolent larceny.
2. Rape has a very definite set of victims and is typically prosecuted on their behalf, whereas all the data supports the idea that even inasmuch as the bottom lines of companies can be "victims" in a crime, digital "piracy" is benign if not helpful to sales of copyrighted materials.
3. While we're at it, most rapes are committed by acquaintances, but that's kind of irrelevant to the comparison. But it does belie further ignorance of, you know, the reality of either of these situations, so I thought it was worth pointing out.
4. In general, consenting to sex with all strangers is a very poor comparison to free content distribution models, because it does little if anything to mitigate the trauma caused, may not prevent violent sexual assault (Many rapists aren't just desperate for sex, after all), and, as I've mentioned before, free content distribution models actually do solve the "problem" of piracy, and there are numerous studies that support either this or the assertion that it is not a problem for content providers in the first place (In terms of money or even sales).
Please try to be informed on both or at least one of the two things you're comparing when making analogies. Otherwise they tend to come off as rather infantile (See: Godwin's law)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They don't. You do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The rest of us are engaging in a discussion.
And by the way, your rendition of Rape Culture Trope #43: Rape Really Is Like Everything Else was pathetic. I've heard it performed way better.
[ 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:
And in case you didn't notice, there are quite a few comments on this thread that are completely unrelated to your trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So you admit that the comments are stupid then...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My original education is in the field of physics from which that concept arises so I know it very well. However it is clear that not every stupid idea is original in a useful way.
The classic quote is " we are all agreed that you are crazy - we are arguing about whether you are crazy enough to be right"
In your case there is no argument - you are "crazy" but not sufficiently (or in the right kind of way) to be right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, wait, I see. Because you're a complete douchebag.
I can copy/paste as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why was this post censored? It was a valid analogy, IMO. And even if it weren't so, I disagree with the techdirt-sponsored censorship of ideas that differ from my own. Doesn't techdirt promote the value of non-censorship? Strange that a censorship feature is built right in to the website that so opposes censorship. What kind of message is that?
The poster's suggestion is that it's silly to think that the only way to stop someone from violating your rights is to just allow them to violate your rights. Marked as "insightful" by this reader.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
That's a strange form of censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
That's a strange form of censorship.
According to techdirt, it's "censorship" for Google to not show certain results in its auto-complete even though those same results show up in the full search. I'm simply applying techdirt's own definition of the word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That being said, he *did* post the same thing twice, which is in the realm of spam. His original comment, the first one, has not (yet) been voted down.
So, easy there, fella.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would be happier if the pushing of the report button led to a human being looking it over. :/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ 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:
1) Don't be condescending.
2) I'm not a US citizen, so the USA constitution does not apply to me. (Regardless where the site is hosted)
3) I am a firm believer of freedom of speech and will defend anyone's right, even if I don't agree with someone. But in this case I figured that it was an unwarranted and unwelcome 'contribution' (if you want to call it as such) to the discussion. In fact it seems to have meant as a willful inflammation of the community. We, as in most of the techdirt readers and commenters have debunked that particular statement many times over in the past. And it keeps getting back. And I just decided to flag it for report.
Perhaps it wasn't the right move, but I'm sick and tired of these kinds of trolls that equate a civil matter with a highly criminal matter, such as rape and theft. Stop conflating and further complicating an already complex issue by adding needless and woefully wrong rhetoric into the mix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
No, I'm pretty sure you're the one who needs a refresher.
It entails not trying to censor speech you find offensive.
No, it doesn't. It entails the government not censoring speech. The community members are not the government and this website is not public property, ergo, no censorship.
I suggest you begin by reading the constitution of the USA.
That's my suggestion to you, sir. Here's the pertinent bit:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
See? This applies to the government, not private citizens on private property.
Otherwise venturing out of your cosy home into wide bad internet is bound to cause you lots of severe anguish.
Like you've just experienced? LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is plainly false. First amendment does restrict private entities, as, for instance, in "Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins" decision.
Sorry, but it is a waste of time to argue with small petulant girls like yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers
2)under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins
So the US Constitution does not apply to censorship by private individual. Individual State Constitutions may broaden the rights if they choose.
Since we're not a public shopping center in California, I don't think the case really applies to us.
So, you're wrong.
And by the way, don't be a dick... no need for such blatant name-calling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You said: That is plainly false. First amendment does restrict private entities, as, for instance, in "Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins" decision.
Why don't you reread Robins and then see if you can tell me how this blog qualifies as semi-public property in California?
Sorry, but it is a waste of time to argue with small petulant girls like yourself.
Your misogyny is pathetic and telling. I sincerely hope that you get some counseling and take a logic class or two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Secondly, you made the mistake of assuming that TD was responsible. Yes, the users here utilised tools provided by TD to block the comment, but they were not responsible for said censorship, any more than they were responsible for your attempt to promote such a ridiculous comment as insightful.
Those are just the most obvious errors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but Mike Masnick hasn't selected what doesn't show. The community had selected what doesn't show. This is less like censorship and more like SafeSearch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
2. It says "flagged by the community", meaning that TD had nothing directly to do with it. The feature is there in part because people do occasionally spam these boards and the trolls can get out of hand. It's a feature that utilises "crowd sourcing" - something that tends to be praised here, and which means that Mike et al. are free to spend their own time more productively. What's the problem there?
3. If you pay attention, it was clearly flagged because it was a duplicate post of an incredibly stupid and deliberately offensive comment. I feel sorry for you if you think that kind of crap is "insightful".Yeah, duplicated troll posts do tend to be subject to some kind of "censorship", and I fail to see the problem with that. Even so, the flagging was clearly due to the duplication of the post rather than its content, as evidenced by the fact that the original has not been flagged.
Stop seeing conspiracies where they don't exist. It makes life easier, and allows you to actually converse with people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Joe, I hardly think it's "techdirt sponsored" anything... someone didn't like the analogy and marked it for report because they found it offensive.
And insightful or not (in my opinion "not"), this should be filed right next to making references to Nazi and Hitler... a ridiculous extreme made to incite people based on the horribleness of the item used (rape in this case). It's not a valid, insightful reference, it's inciteful trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Don't you know how it works around here? Piracy = good, anything else = bad.
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So, I guess it's OK if I come over and "fair use" your wife?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Previously, Mike has questioned the judgment of companies that 'moderated' their offerings past loud protests and cries of outrage from their customer base (a la Apple's App Store and Google's InstantSearch).
In this case, Mike is openly offering the community a way to moderate the thread themselves, after several used of incessant begging by said community. In this case, it's a feature, not a bug, esp. to the many people using it.
That being said, I disagree with this button being used in this manner, and have protested this idea every time that readers have asked for it. I would be happier if the pushing of the report button led to a human being looking it over, and deciding if it's spam or off-topic, but then it really would be Techdirt removing messages, rather than the community, and the cries of censorship would get louder, rather than quieter. :/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DJs and electronic musicians don't (usually) care about piracy or song sales because of, again, the shows. Lots of people who've never paid for a single song from an edm producer will pay the 10-40 dollars for their show because they've heard a free mix or seen photos of previous shows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not to mention they deter small venues like restaurants from having independent artists/musicians perform, by demanding money from them or threatening them face a potentially expensive lawsuit if they don't pay up, under the pretext that someone might infringe. In the end, the artist (and the public) loses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Sure, it works for [the type of artist in the example], but it will never work for [some other type of artist]."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If only the big players in the Music Industry realised this and stopped trying to maximise profits by churning out crap, auto-tuned, one-hit-wonder artists/bands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
every single scenario you suggest works just fine for talented people, that the public want to support.
But not one single scenario you put forward where free can be used to promote sales will work for talentless hacks that the public cannot stand.
When and only when you can present a strategy of "free" that will benefit the pointless and the useless will you have a model that can successfully replace the traditional role of labels and studios.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or you think Fred is cool?
And here is a lady who quit her day job because her blog was so successful.
Hyperbole And A Half
For crying out loud TAM get a grip, buy some glasses and look around you once in a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Next time I will put GTAM(Generic TAM)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wow, it's so weird. Subjective humor is subjective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Like Youtube Music?
All big labels are there, why do artists need the labels to put them on Youtube again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
"When and only when you can present a strategy of "free" that will benefit the pointless and the useless will you have a model that can successfully replace the traditional role of labels and studios."
So that means that labels exist to benefit the pointless and useless. If nothing else, this AC gets an A for effort when it comes to comedy.
The industry can keep complaining about piracy, but the game has changed and if the industry doesn't accept that, new and more nimble players will emerge and become dominant. It's really that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow
The rape comment was a different AC.
This one is a spoof!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ultraviolet
Of course only available in the U.S.A..
I only see this because the proxy I'm using was locate in the U.S., where is that dude saying that Youtube had only LoLCats?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh wait all big labels have their artists there on Youtube, WTF!
Kicking and screaming they need to give it out anyways is that irony or what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the key phrase in all of this. He didn't for a moment suggest you always have to give away content. He understands the value of a promotional video, some promos copies, etc.
You also have to remember that he comes from the DJ / Remox universe, where they have spent their formative years working with other people's material, often without permission. It sort of changes the view.
The funniest part of all of this is that this guy makes most of his money producing music for other people (even is "albums" are a bunch of other artists performing the songs he writes). Most of the acts (actually it appear all of them) are label artists. Perhaps this puts him in the position where he can make some of his stuff free, because other people are paying wildly high for his services as producer rather than DJ.
If it's his choice to make things available for free, more power to him. If it's a "fan" making that choice for him, that is disrespectful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The point is that what you can charge for anything is the marginal cost plus a proportionate margin (usually 5%-50%). That margin can be used to offset the upfront costs. The marginal cost of his producing services is substantial (his time plus equipment etc) so it cannot generally be given away.
However the marginal cost of making a copy is near zero (and likely to be borne by the consumer). Therefore you cannot load a significant margin onto it. You have to find another product that still HAS a significant marginal cost to cover your fixed costs.
This is basic economics.
If you want to understand this more graphically I suggest you visit your local Ferrari dealership. Look at the plush carpets, the fancy suits that the salesmen wear. If you look like a potential Ferrari buyer you could try going in to be offered a free coffee and to explore the shiny showroom. If they believe you are serious you might be offered champagne.
Now compare the local market stall.
Why don't you get offered free coffee when you go in to buy a bag of carrots?
Answer - because you can't cover the same overheads when you're selling $1 items as you can when you're selling $200,000 ones.
The record industry's problem is that technology has turned their product from a Ferrari into a bag of carrots overnight and they're still saddled with Ferrari dealer overheads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Music on your website isn't a scarce good, and you don't HAVE to ask money for that.
Nice try, Bob, better luck next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_guetta
"Guetta has sold over three million albums and 15 million singles worldwide.[2]"
I notice that you don't have a Wikipedia entry, so presumably your opinion means less than Guetta's, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Choice. It's a good thing. Taking away other people's choice. Not a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Their choice was never a real one in the first place. Once published a work is "out there" in the hands of other people. You have no more realistic hope of retaining control of it than Cnut had in holding back the tide.
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference."
Reinhold Niebuhr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Looking at the adverts on TV (including the ones in the programmes) it seems to me that the record indutry is now selling mostly to the over 60's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The reality is that they don't have (and never had) the choice.
Once something is published the opportunity to restrict it is gone.
That doesn't mean that you can't charge for the copies that you make available yourself. The people that you refer to are doing just that - but if you search for Torrents etc you will find that even those people have de-facto given away their stuff - whether they wanted to or not.
Personally I'm perfectly happy to pay for a download provided it isn't at a silly iTunes price (most of which goes to Apple anyway). I'm also happy to pay more to go to a concert, pay even more to go on a weekend workshop with an artist I like and pay even more up front to fund a recording being made (to be released to the public domain).
So if you want to make money from me then you had better be aware that you will make so much more from the other routes that giving away the recording (even if not doing it really was an option) makes a lot of sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As far as taking away choice, those people you defend chose to produce content they knew is easy to copy. You can't keep people from making copies, so why try? Stop pretending that it's a natural right to choose who gets to share ideas and knowledge. It's far more beneficial to society that it gets shared rather than held for ransom. More people with more access to works will inspire far more people to create more works than the previous methods of disseminating works. When controlling access to content becomes a business, it hurts us all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's not anything Masnick hasn't already said but it is brief and to the point. Right on mark, I'd say. However, there are those that will take exception to your well versed words of wisdom - it is those that believe the "way we've always done it" must be the right way because they actually produce no content of their own - they just want to be paid because the artist made something that they believe they deserve(?) a share of!
I have yet to hear an actual artist or content producer raise the objections we see here from the trolls who claim that the content industry is being eroded and devalued by the adaptive marketing practices we see highlighted here on TD! Why do only shills and trolls make these comments, wouldn't actual artists/talented folk be howling if these "new" marketing techniques didn't work at all? Radio and TV have handed the consumer content on a timely basis for 60 years, but when TD writes about how giving away content is viable (when followed up on correctly) the shills and trolls come out from under their bridge to declare the rest of the world is made up of criminal "freetards" who are willing to steal anything from anybody because they don't "have" to pay if it is freely available. Yet, time and again the studies show this simply isn't the case. But who needs facts when you have an axe to grind?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We haven't done this. Basic economics has done this.
God, I really want to put this on a picture of a cat so people can understand it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is fantastic. I'm going to save that one for later.
It's not copyrighted, right? ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Big Deal
He'll make his dough as a producer for some big pop divas and that's good enough.
He's right about free content, though. But in his case, you do get what you pay for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Big Deal
He has fans all over the globe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attitude
So for him his tracks are just promo... to visit one of his gigs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Attitude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Attitude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Attitude
So, what is he? An awful or a good dj?
But clearly you all have now seen that this business model would work for talentless hacks as well for talented people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pointless battles going on in here
The pro-copyright people will spout the same strawman arguments over and over and over again, meanwhile we try to educate them.
But they have closed their minds to our solutions, trying to refute them by saying that it works for artist X but wouldn't work for artist Y. Or that it's the same as rape, or they compare a non-scarce good to a scarce good, and argue that they be the same as well.
To the pro-copyright people, how many of you watched the Superbowl last night? How much did you pay to watch it?
They are putting it on tv for free (albeit ad-supported), in order to have people become fans, and have those fans then go pay for tickets to visit the games or buy apparel.
How is THAT any different from what David Guetta is saying here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who�s David Guetta?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who�s David Guetta?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who�s David Guetta?
Just in case some of you have an MBA, which negates your ability to grasp the obvious, I am being sarcastic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who�s David Guetta?
Oh, but she has:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100524/0032549541.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This shows the fundamental flaw with the idea of attempting to have a rational discussion with me: it would never work as I will not be brought to a position by logic, evidence or examples as these are things I do not care about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Minor, new or niche artists don't count when they do this kind of thing because they have nothing to lose.
Major, successful, mainstream artists don't count when they do this as they are rolling in it and can afford to take the risk.
Midrank artists who no one can think of off hand are the ones who are most damaged by whatever it is that Mike is talking about because they can't don't, do you see?
Every success is always an exception,
any failure will be proof positive that there is no workable alternative to suing everyone in sight and the laws must be changed to make suing a profitable, speedy and efficient business model.
Case closed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We at transgalaxy can pull you out of oblivion and ensure that your music/writings/art will be seen by the public.
Your redemption is only available through us as without our promotional budget, no one will ever see or hear your work.
That is unless you use the internet.
Ssssh
Don't use the internet, there's all that piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rape sucks.
Discuss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Continued:
But the pendulum is beginning to swing the other direction. Rape education has caused it become LESS undereported and some strange combination of influences (IMO: general empowerment of women, lawsuit happy citizens, women entering the workforce, etc.) has led to rape and/or sexual crimes to be a huge problem with regard to false allegations. Please, PLEASE note that I don't think that those causes I listed are inherently bad, I'm just looking at causes, not judging them.
"However, I'd be willing to change that position if I saw any hard data."
Well, this article is pretty heavily sourced in the footnotes (http://prhome.defense.gov/mpp/ACCESSION%20POLICY/poprep98/html/chapter_7.html), and note that it is from a PR wing of the DoD (which makes me think their probably hedging their conclusions a bit in the favorable direction, but even THEY note:
_Three systematic analyses of the socioeconomic composition of accessions during the volunteer period suggest that little has changed with the All Volunteer Force. All found that members of the military tended to come from backgrounds that were somewhat lower in socioeconomic status than the U.S. average, but that the differences between the military and the comparison groups were relatively modest.(5) These results have been confirmed in recent editions of this report, which portray a socioeconomic composition of enlisted accessions similar to the population as a whole, but with the top quartile of the population underrepresented.(6)_
Note the prevalence of copout words, like "relatively". The bottom line is that even the DRAFT, which was highly accused of selection bias, had a more even background distribution than the volunteer force.
"I wouldn't take the position that rape occurs more often to children in lower-income families, and the idea that rape is something that happens to poor people is in itself a rape culture trope."
Okay, take this w/a grain of salt, because these doctors in the following study all seem to be from Indian colleges, but it's written in English, so I'm not sure exactly where the study was conducted. Additionally, if in India, I don't know how much an impact cultural differences play in the percentages:
http://msl.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/45/3/256
Note that most sexual crime victims come from low socio-economic class (no percentage given) and were fairly uneducated (88%). Also, a majority of them were unemployed (93.5%), although that again could be accounted for if it took place in India (I don't know a great deal about women's lib there).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Continued:
Citation needed.
...and some strange combination of influences (IMO: general empowerment of women, lawsuit happy citizens, women entering the workforce, etc.) has led to rape and/or sexual crimes to be a huge problem with regard to false allegations.
Again, citation needed.
The data I have suggests that false rape reports are less common than false car theft reports. And of course, no one looks at the rate of false car theft reports and uses it to judge victims of car theft.
These are the important bits. Whether or not poor kids get raped more than kids with money is really not very relevant to the original conversation, which had to do with the prevalence of rape, a rape culture that denies that prevalence, and why rape is not the same as any other crime.
Anyway, this is a good read on rape culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Continued:
Citation needed."
Oh, come on. This is obviously a passionate issue for you, but let's not get silly. A myriad of social changes have created a culture at least SOMEWHAT more conducive to reporting rape: empowerment of women, civil judgements in sex crime cases, education of such crimes, police groups becoming better equipped to specifically handling those types of cases, etc. No one is saying rape isn't underreported. It is. It's just becoming less so. Given that reported rape crimes are historically low. But what the hell, you asked for a citation, so I might as well give you one (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800610.html)
FTA: "Several decades after the establishment of rape crisis hotlines, greater sensitivity toward rape victims by police and prosecutors, adoption of policies by news organizations to not identify victims and limitations on how much a victim's sexual history can be placed in evidence during trial, the Justice Department estimates that 61 percent of rapes and sexual assaults are still not reported. But that is down from 69 percent in 1996, and experts say the trend remains downward."
Rape: WAY down. Unreported rape: less down, but still down. For a rape culture, we're sure raping a lot less women....
"Again, citation needed."
False Allegation by Charles McDowell
Study of false rape allegation. The study concludes that 27 percent of all rape charges are false. Chicago Lawyer June 1985
FBI Academy 1985
His study summarized his conclusion that presently some 27% or rape charges are false. He did NOT take into account whether the reporter KNOWINGLY filed false charges, but does note that as a global matter this statistic is waaaaaaay up from thirty years ago in the 70's. Again, since the 70's, rape way down, false rape allegations up.
"The data I have suggests that false rape reports are less common than false car theft reports."
I saw the same statistic. It appears to come from a rape victims advocacy group. Certainly no one is unbiased, and I don't know for sure that that group is hedging the data in any way....but do we need to have a discussion on RIAA/MPAA piracy statistics here?
"And of course, no one looks at the rate of false car theft reports and uses it to judge victims of car theft."
Probably because one involves a horrific violent crime and the other is essentially a matter of insurance fraud. Kind of a silly comparison.
"Whether or not poor kids get raped more than kids with money is really not very relevant to the original conversation, which had to do with the prevalence of rape, a rape culture that denies that prevalence, and why rape is not the same as any other crime."
Sorry, but nonsense. You threw out a statistic, telling the person you were talking to that 1 of every 6 women he knew was raped. That was a garbage assertion and unbecoming of someone who generally argues well and reasonably. The statistics appear to show that rape is in massive decline. While certainly not a disappeared problem, that coupled with what appear to be fairly clear socio-economic factors suggest that you were talking to the wrong people about it. Again, my sources could be wrong, but based on the multiple sources I'm seeing, particularly as compared across multiple countries that have similarly empowered female populations, I doubt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Continued:
Yes, let's not.
Because the same myriad of changes that have supposedly made it easier to report rape in general, especially the empowerment of women, have also made it easier for rapists to rape women whom are not in a position to take advantage of said changes, such as women in the military, in high-powered jobs, etc. And, of course, for poor women, no real changes have been made.
Your citation shows an estimate of 8%, using two studies with different methodology. In addition, although the small part that you quoted tends to agree with you, the article itself is all over the map.
If you want to show me a statistic, then show me a statistic, DH, not a news article about competing statistics.
Again, let's not get silly.
His study summarized his conclusion that presently some 27% or rape charges are false. He did NOT take into account whether the reporter KNOWINGLY filed false charges...
This sentence doesn't tell you that his study was incredibly flawed?
Anyway, in McDowell's study, he only classified an allegation as 'proved' if 'the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence support the allegation so strongly that there really is no other logical conclusion'.
Of course, the only cases in which this would happen are the 'stranger pulls a woman from the bushes' type rape, which is the least common kind of rape, and completely exclude spouse rape, rape in which the victim was unable to consent, and so on. In addition, this study specifically looked at military cases, and is not a view of rape in the general population.
I saw the same statistic. It appears to come from a rape victims advocacy group. Certainly no one is unbiased, and I don't know for sure that that group is hedging the data in any way....but do we need to have a discussion on RIAA/MPAA piracy statistics here?
If anyone needs a lecture on MPAA statistics in this conversation, it's you. I mean, aside from the news article about a statistic instead of the actual study that provided it, you seem to have picked the oldest, most biased study available. And by biased, I mean by a proud misogynist with a flawed methodology. Of course, this may be the only study that agrees with you, and not me.
Probably because one involves a horrific violent crime and the other is essentially a matter of insurance fraud. Kind of a silly comparison.
No, it's not a silly comparison. Rape is the only crime in which we use the small number of completely unrelated false allegations to judge the suspects, rather than the evidence at hand. That has nothing to do with the severity of the crime, and everything to do with our culture.
And rape is not always, or even usually, a violent crime. Take, for instance, people whom are cognitively disabled, either temporarily or permanently, and people whom are raped by someone in a position of trust, like teachers, relatives, police officers, etc. These people don't fight back and some even 'consent', which makes it not 'rape-rape' in the minds of most folks. (Especially when the media steps in and report that the teacher, relative, officer, etc. is charged with 'having sex with' a minor, their student, their child, etc., as though you can be charged with 'having sex' and not 'rape'.)
Your characterization of rape as a violent crime is, in itself, a rape culture trope.
That was a garbage assertion and unbecoming of someone who generally argues well and reasonably.
I wrote out a statistic that is supported by evidence that you trashed before you even saw it. That, and your comments that followed it (An article about a statistic? Really?), have quite clearly shown your bias on this topic, which is unbecoming of someone who generally argues well and reasonably.
The statistics appear to show that rape is in massive decline.
The statistics do not show this.
While certainly not a disappeared problem, that coupled with what appear to be fairly clear socio-economic factors suggest that you were talking to the wrong people about it.
I'm sorry? I was unaware that there were 'right' or 'wrong' people to discuss things with. Can you expound on that idea, please? And be sure to explain exactly how answering someone's query can be 'wrong'.
Again, my sources could be wrong, but based on the multiple sources I'm seeing, particularly as compared across multiple countries that have similarly empowered female populations, I doubt it.
What 'multiple' sources? You have one article that discusses competition statistics, with zero methodology or links to the actual studies, and one old, military-specific study with flawed methodology.
I mean, technically, that's multiple, but it's sort of a silly characterization.
If you have multiple sources, link them and let's discuss. But honestly, please, and not from a defensive stance. No one has accused you of raping anyone, or of being personally responsible for the culture that we live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Continued:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Continued:
I'll type in the definition of rape later tonight, when I have more time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Continued:
Anyway, what about girls who get sloppy drunk? When they make a poor decision to sleep with some guy, is that rape?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Continued:
But you probably meant adult female and not adolescent female. :P
Anyway, all snark aside, to answer the obvious question, if you make a poor decision and consent to an act that you later regret, that's on you. This is true whether you are drunk or sober. I've seen people get extremely randy while drunk (and sober) and hang all over (and sometimes sexually assault) other party-goers and then go home with the first person who consents. In these cases, that person is obviously enthusiastically consenting to intercourse.
To answer the underlying question, a woman who has a drink (or seven) does not give up her bodily autonomy.
Part of the problem here comes from the social narrative that says 'No means no.'. This was a step in the right direction, but not nearly far enough, because if they're passed out, been slipped a roofie, etc., they can't say no, can they? And if you pull a drunk woman into a bedroom, remove her clothing, and have sex with her, and she hasn't said yes, then you've engaged in intercourse without her consent, and that's rape.
Another problem here is the view that a woman who drinks deserves what she gets afterward. This is akin to saying that a woman who wears a sexy outfit is 'asking for it'. Sure, the drunk/sexy woman might be asking for it, but that doesn't mean that she's asking anyone who might possibly want her.
Anyway, it doesn't matter that she was too 'sloppy drunk' or too afraid to say no, because the important part is that she didn't say yes.
To look at it a different way, what about a woman who takes a prescription opiate for hereditary migraine disease? If she wanders downstairs to the kitchen of her sorority and is pulled into a bedroom by a guy, stumbling and maybe giggling a bit and not very cognizant of what's going on because she's taken a prescription opiate, and then he removes her clothing and has sex with her without her consent and she's too messed up to fight back, is that rape?
The obvious connection between those two scenarios is that the word yes was absent from both. The underlying issue is that people are conditioned to want to punish the drunk woman for daring to take a drink/wear sexy clothing/go to a party/do anything that 'nice girls don't do'.
Women in our culture are taught to be careful about what they wear, how they wear it, how they carry themselves, where they walk, when they walk there, with whom they walk, whom they trust, what they do, where they do it, with whom they do it, what they drink, how much they drink, whether they make eye contact, if they're alone, if they're with a stranger, if they're in a group, if they're in a group of strangers, if it's dark, if the area is unfamiliar, if they're carrying something, how they carry it, what kind of shoes they're wearing in case they have to run, what kind of purse they carry, what jewelry they wear, what time it is, what street it is, what environment it is, how many people they sleep with, what kind of people they sleep with, who their friends are, to whom they give their number, who's around when the delivery guy comes, to get an apartment where they can see who's at the door before they can see they, to check before they open the door to the delivery guy, to own a dog or a dog-sound-making machine, to get a roommate, to take self-defense, to always be alert always pay attention always watch their back always be aware of their surroundings and never let their guard down for a moment lest they be sexually assaulted and if they are and didn't follow all the rules it's their fault.
And not the fault of the person who engaged in intercourse without hearing the word yes.
And that, Joe, is a rape culture.
To recap: If she didn't say yes, it's rape.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Continued:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Continued:
Personally, I believe that the key is enthusiastic consent. Right now, the standard says that silence is consent, which is really silly. Silence more often means coercion, fear, or downright unconsciousness.
Anyway, this consent may be in the form of her actually verbalizing, or in her ardent response to your advance. If she hasn't verbally confirmed her willingness and/or isn't ardently responding*, then you probably need to stop and confirm that she wants to have sex. If she's cognitively impaired in some way, like she's been drinking or taken some medication, then you probably need to verbally confirm that she wants to have sex.
What alot of men don't realize is how intimidating men can be, and how much society tells us wimmins to be nice, not to make a fuss, and - more alarmingly - not to fight back, because you'll be hurt less if you just let him finish. This quiet - and sometimes unintended - coercion is exactly why men should take five seconds to ask their partners to confirm their desire for intercourse.
(Of course, there are some women who have internalized the idea that they would be bad or slutty for wanting to be touched, but who want it nonetheless. You would annoy someone in that mindset by making them accountable for their own participation in touching or sex. However, that's what needs to happen, for your protection, at least.)
It's much harder for a rape culture to exist when everyone takes responsibility for what they want and clearly conveys that to their potential partners, and everyone respects everyone else's boundaries.
Anyway, I have no idea why someone would want to be with someone who didn't know what they wanted, or who wanted it to happen to them somehow without their cognitive participation. I'm bisexual and there's nothing sexier with either gender than someone who knows what they want, and isn't ashamed of it.
*Wiggling may not count as ardently responding.
Because I don't recall ever explicitly asking "do you consent to having sex with me"...
Try it sometime. Or, you know, a variation like 'Does x feel good? Do you like y?". If you already do that, then congrats! The people you're sleeping with are enthusiastically consenting. Way to not be a rapist. :)
...I don't consider myself a rapist.
One study of college-ages males showed that 1 in 8 of them admitted to intentionally and repeatedly targeting inebriated college-age women, because they would be unable to decline intercourse. Again, they repeatedly and intentionally found women that were too drunk to consent (or even stand up), and had sex with them. Yet they didn't consider themselves rapists, either. (More like opportunists, eh? Hurr hurr hurr. /sarcasm)
I'm not saying that you're a rapist. What I am saying is that rapists - especially pedophiles - don't always think of themselves as rapists, just like many abusers don't think of themselves as abusers.
"I only hit her when she needs it."
"I can quit anytime."
"That wasn't rape. I mean, she was really drunk but she didn't stop me, now did she?"
Or even, in the case of children:
"S/he wanted it! I love them! I would never hurt Susie/Johnny!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Continued:
I think the point there is the uncertainty. If you're unable to tell whether you have someone's consent, if there is any doubt in your mind then it's your responsibility to find out for certain.
The legal aspect is hard. However, knowing whether you've got someone's consent is merely a matter of being conscientious and should be as much part of your routine as using a condom, for example. How you go about it should depend on your partner, not anyone else's opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Continued:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Continued:
Your characterization of rape as a violent crime is, in itself, a rape culture trope.
The study you linked (which, by the way, never explicitly states the definition of rape like I asked) deals with forcible rape, stalking and physical assault. So, that study is just another brick in the so-called rape culture, I assume?
Take, for instance, people whom are cognitively disabled, either temporarily or permanently
I am unclear as to what you mean by temporarily cognitively disabled. While you're telling me your definition of rape, please include what this means, too.
I find it's best to lay out the foundations, especially definitions, before any discussion. It usually saves a lot of time and frustration.
Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Continued:
I'm unsure which specific study you are referring to, otherwise I would have a look for the definition they are using.
"So, that study is just another brick in the so-called rape culture, I assume?"
Well spotted. This is why there should be a more open process for producing these studies and the data they use should be more publicly accessible. Often the problem with rape statistics is indeed the definition of rape, not only of those conducting the studies but also those gathering the data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Love His Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]