Music Publishers Settle With Limewire; Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question
from the ah,-discovery... dept
We were a bit surprised last summer when the major music publishers piled on to the bandwagon and sued Limewire. After all, the major record labels (who own most of the major publishers anyway) were already involved in a lawsuit with Limewire and had won a pretty complete victory over the file sharing system. Having the publishers sue as well seemed like just a way to try to squeeze even more money out of a dead shell. Apparently, the publishers just figured that whatever they got out of this was easy money. What they didn't expect was that Limewire, dead as it is, would fight back pretty hard and during discovery demand actual evidence that the publishers really hold the copyrights they claim to hold (something that isn't always clear once you dig into the details). So it's interesting to see that a settlement has been reached, and the publishers' portion of the lawsuit is effectively over. Many reports seem to be assuming that Limewire gave up here, but there's a good chance that it was the publishers who backed out, realizing they had no interest in opening up a discovery process that might prove a large segment of their business is based on pure fiction. In the meantime, they'll leave it to their parent companies to continue the battle to try to get whatever cash they can out of Limewire.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, discovery, publishers
Companies: limewire
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really?
...yeah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's the inducement charges that hurt P2P.
[ 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:
So the BS headline is hardly a surprise, is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:Wait a minute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:Wait a minute
If it was, then no one would ever sign to a label.
Quit trying to rationalize the fact you rip off musicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:Wait a minute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:Wait a minute
Reminds me of the Emerald Palace and land beyond.
To quote someone higher in the thread,
"Wake up.."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or is the misuse of the word FUD just a catch word that you hope will get you some attention?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Mike has no solid evidence as to why the case was settled (as was stated in the article - unless he has access to sealed files and isn't telling us), so while it is his opinion, stating it in the headline like it has been presents it as fact. So in this case, I'd say using the FUD acronym is entirely appropriate, since it's anti-"music publisher" propaganda.
And while I am generally an avid reader of techdirt and love most of the articles, this type of writing makes me very cynical of the objectivity of this blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
adjective
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
I do not know what you have been reading but it only takes a day or two to see that Mike has a definite position and he uses his site as a place to voice it. This is not a news site it is not presented to the reader as place to go to gain general knowledge or to catch up on current events.
To his credit he encourages dissenting opinions and discussion. He actively encourages those who disagree to bring substantive arguments backed by fact. Unfortunately few rise to the challenge, but I digress.
People like to throw the term FUD at Mike because it tends to provoke an emotional response in people, much like it did with you.
Headlines are meant to grab attention and raise interest in the article. They are not a synopsis.
Based on the ongoing fight Limewire is putting up, the fact that this ended during discovery tends to support the opinion that Limewire probably held firm and the other party (in this case the music publishers) gave up. The headline reflects that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No he doesn't. If you disagree, you are uneducated, foolish, or being childish.
Accept it: This post is FUD at it's finest. It's a lie made up by Mike, with nothing to back it up. It's his opinion, it isn't reality, but he is trying to pass it off as such.
In this case, Mike is being rather bald faced about his fabrications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uncertainty? Well, yeah, it's right there in the article that Mike doesn't know for sure what's up, he's wondering if it's publishers backing off or Limewire based on what's gone on previously in the case. He's allowed to wonder.
Doubt? Hm, doubt...I don't see it as applicable. Wondering isn't doubting so much as it is...just wondering.
*shrug*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt
If Mike was wondering, he wouldn't make solid statements like "Music Publishers Settle With Limewire; Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question". That is a statement of fact that just isn't fact. Where are the "maybe" words in there? Perhaps? Potentially? Could be? Nope. Just fact.
How about " there's a good chance that it was the publishers who backed out"? That is creating uncertainty. It's also a silly statement, because it is equally likely (because we have no facts) that the Limewire dude decided to settle, and thus save some of the money he made while operating the illicit business. By making such a one sided observation, he is putting the reading the mindset that only one side had a reason to "back down". Further, we don't even know if there was any backing down, perhaps it is a simple case of someone realizing how much it would cost to carry the case to the surpreme court, and decides not to be the patsy for all the other file sharing systems.
We don't know. FUD doesn't require "fear", rather it is the process of trying to put so much smoke in the air that you can't see the truth even when it is in front of you, and rather you buy the "truth" being fed to you. It is putting out unfavorable speculation or unfavorable "opinions framed as facts" that can change people's perceptions of what is true and what is not.
What is really disappoint is that Mike seems unable to admit that he over did it. If he blows it this bad on a simple, straight story like this, can you imagine what he has done to some of the more complex stories he has tried to "cover" (or cover up, depending on how you look at it?)
(smart people will notice the use of FUD here to make a point).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your comment presupposes I "blew" this story. Do you have any evidence to support that? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why did you address the points he was making, Mike? Funny how people think you invite dissent. You do no such thing. In this case, you simply ignored it and retorted with a joke. Why not address the substance of his post? Why not act like a proper leader on your own board?
[ 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: Re:
A board has explicit fora to browse from the start. This is a blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yup. There isn't any credible, quotable, source to support the angle you have reported. Your headline isn't true, and the entire story is written to say that Limewire stood up completely and the music industry folded like a house of cards.
You have nothing to support it. I don't have to prove some "other side" of the story to prove that you made a clear mis-statement.
Sorry, you blew the story.
[ 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: Re:
Hollywood Reporter has the same info. I heard it independently from sources I know.
What credible info do you have that I am wrong?
You have nothing to support it. I don't have to prove some "other side" of the story to prove that you made a clear mis-statement.
Actually, you do.
Sorry, you blew the story.
All in the eye of the beholder, and I will say that one of us is working with more knowledge than the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Such a liar. THR only reports that going through the discovery would be a "pain." I take this to mean costly.
You then FUDed it out to the extreme and said that they're "afraid" and that discovery "that might prove a large segment of their business is based on pure fiction."
You're so full of shit, Mike. Don't think we don't notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I stand by my post. If you use the term, it should actually apply, and IN MY PERSONAL OPINION it does not apply in this instance.
Perhaps you might find or even invent (!) a new set of letters to more accurately describe how you feel about these kinds of things.
In conclusion, GoshGollyJeebus, can't a guy ruminate on his own blog anymore?! What is this, Turkey?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it would have. Exactly.
Now ask yourself: what kind of person would write a headline like the one at the top of the page?
A person that has absolutely no regard for morals or the truth whatsoever.
This kind of stuff happens every day here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have to say that I really take offense at this comment. I believe I am an extremely moral person, and someone who believes the search for truth is quite important.
I'm not sure why you can't just say you disagree with me and discuss the actual points at issue here without making up stuff about me. It's really quite odd.
I'm happy to discuss things with you and to debate the issues. What I don't understand are these random and malicious attacks on myself -- especially when they seem to lack any substantive point in response to what I have written.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please explain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
I would like to post a challenge to you to create a title that combines an "Elvis and I gave birth to a monkey baby" .... with IP or content. :p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If you disagree, you are uneducated, foolish, or being childish."
This is just a bunch of FUD. IP maximists resort to far more personal attacks than others and the fact that you have to resort to accusing others of being intolerant of dissenting views when you in fact are far less tolerant is just more evidence of your intolerance. You can't argue the issues, so you have to resort to accusing others of that which you are far more guilty of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No he doesn't. If you disagree, you are uneducated, foolish, or being childish."
I'll ask what I asked in a previous post last week, where I (predictably) received no response - when did Mike personally call an honestly dissenting poster any of these things?
I have not personally seen Mike attack anybody personally in his responses here, unless they're an obvious troll (and what's more childish than deliberately trolling?). I have seen him engage in debate with dissenting opinions, but sadly posters who honestly hold differing beliefs tend to be in the minority among the trolls and cotnrarians here.
So, I ask again: please cite one instance where Mike has personally attacked somebody in this way, where that person was stating an honest opinion and not trying to troll?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's because the blog is not objective. It's my opinion. Always has been and always will be. But my opinions are based on facts, and there has been a strong sense from those involved in this case, with whom I've talked off-the-record, that what my opinion as to what happened is accurate.
But, again, this blog is not objective and never has been. So I'm not sure why you expected objective reporting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your "strong sense" - or anyone else's - does not a fact make. Not now, not ever, never.
Why not just admit you wrote what you think might have happened? Oh, right, sorry. 'Cause that wouldn't draw as much traffic as your BS headline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All you FUDers never seem to read the article in which Mike clearly states that it is his opinion that they settled
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Focusing on the topic as something other than opinion is taking it too literally. It can reasonably be assumed that what Mike writes is his opinion, he doesn't have to write "in my opinion" before every sentence for it to be reasonably assumed to be the case. This is especially the case since this is mostly an opinionated blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, this is his opinion. There is evidence that his opinion is correct. Is there absolute proof? No. Absolute proof is impossible. There is some circumstantial evidence. Yes, I'll even grant that the evidence isn't necessarily that strong and that Mike might be wrong, but there is evidence that he is right and, based on the evidence, it's not unreasonable to hold Mike's opinion. and Mike is merely expressing his opinion. He's not saying that it has been proven with solid evidence, he is merely expressing it as his opinion. You may hold another opinion. Or maybe you don't hold an opinion. Maybe your position is that you don't know why the music publishers settled and that you don't think there is strong enough evidence to conclude that Mikes opinion is correct. and you know what, I won't necessarily disagree with you there either. I think such is also a reasonable opinion. I don't claim to know why the music publishers settled myself, I do think Mikes opinion has merit, but I don't think it's conclusive beyond a shadow of a doubt.
But your problem is that you are completely intolerant of anyone who expresses an opinion that disagrees with yours. You are selfish, you only value your own opinion and anyone that disagrees with you must be spreading FUD and shouldn't be allowed to express an opposing opinion whatsoever. This just goes to show the mentality of IP maximists. So uncompromising and one sided, its either their way or the highway. No one else should be allowed to express a dissenting opinion, there is no middle ground with these people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The owner of Limewire owns a hedge fund and numerous other businesses, thanks to his ripping off muscians and labels, so he should be sued as much as is legally possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If he is as guilty as you seem to believe why isn't he serving a prison sentence? Why did they only hit him in the wallet and not by restricting his liberty?
.... and you say that Mike's posts are FUD, jeez!
.... and just to reiterate what has been said hundreds of times on hundreds of posts by Mike, the Techdirt team of posters and the people who comment here Techdirt is opinion, some backed by facts, some on hunches, this isn't a newspaper or a news programme if you don't agree with what he is saying provide your own opinion backed by fact/hunches and argue your point, no one forces anyone to come and read the blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stick your willfully blind spin up your ass, Freetardo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Another AC I can ignore from this point on, thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
there's a good chance that it was the publishers who backed out, realizing they had no interest in opening up a discovery process that might prove a large segment of their business is based on pure fiction.
There is an equally good chance that monkey's might fly out of Wayne's ass (Wayne's World). Do you have any, any, even the slightest sensation of something to back this up, or are you once again using your "wishful thinking" mode to put words in other people's mouths?
Your opinion is almost actionable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, if we were making odds in Vegas, I'd say the chances of the two things are quite different. Multiple people very close to the case have indicated that what I described here is what happened. Is it definite? No. Is there a decent chance it happened? Yes. That's why I shared that info. Many of the other reports are claiming things that do not seem supported by what I've heard from folks very close to this case. One prominent site claimed that this settlement was with the *labels* when it was not.
Your opinion is almost actionable.
Interesting. By "actionable" I assume you mean for a claim of defamation. Would you care to elaborate on what makes it "actionable"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Music Publishers Settle With Limewire; Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question"
You state this as fact. It is not. It is your opinion, but the way you state it makes it look like the platiffs are scared or gave in.
If you tell lies about people (or corporations) they are very likely to get upset about it, and ask you to correct it.
The reality is that the Limewire people could have been told the simple truth: Settle with us for less than the legal fees it is going to cost you to take this to the surpreme court.
Either cite your sources, or admit you blew it and once again over-reached on your headline and claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's a headline, and the details are explained in the post itself. That's not actionable. Also, recognize that for it to be actionable it would need to be both false and malicious. And any attempt to take action over it would open the publishers up for discovery in which we could establish whether or not it's true.
If you tell lies about people (or corporations) they are very likely to get upset about it, and ask you to correct it.
Indeed. So let's see what happens, shall we?
The reality is that the Limewire people could have been told the simple truth: Settle with us for less than the legal fees it is going to cost you to take this to the surpreme court.
Yes. That's a possibility. Here's why it's unlikely: this lawsuit was the sideshow anyway. The costs associated with it were minimal compared to the bigger lawsuit with the labels. It could have happened, but, again, there seems to be little to support that's what happened.
Either cite your sources, or admit you blew it and once again over-reached on your headline and claims.
You appear to be unfamiliar with how journalism tends to work. I talk to lots of people in the industry on background or off the record. I have no requirement to reveal sources, especially not to an anonymous commenter.
All I will say is I most certainly did not overreach here. We'll leave it at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
'Nuff said. Hope your lawyers are on speed dial for the day someone calls your bluff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You forgot to add "In my opinion"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the other AC above also forgot to add "in my opinion":
>> [In my opinion] One day you will learn the value of using "in my opinion" once in a while.
Question. Are we really going to see how long it takes or was that just my thinking wishfully?
Question. Did the top AC and the lower AC really forget as I and Ben stated, or was "in my opinion" left out for other reasons?
For want of a "?" (in the title) the war (by AC) was lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know, like REAL journalists do before they publish something.
On the bright side, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. At Fox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, there's you. But that's about it.
This is a blog. I post my opinions. Deal with it.
You know, like REAL journalists do before they publish something.
Yeah. And did you research that this is an opinion blog before stating your opinion about it? No? Hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not only have I been here before, I've been involved in these issues since before there was a TechDirt. In fact, I wrote the very first print story on MP3 technology, in English, anyway, way back in mid '97, when typing "mp3" into Yahoo - there was no Google - only returned a couple dozen hits. If you'd like, you can email me and I'll point you to it.
[ 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:
Yes, I can see how much you're not listening by your incessant responding.
Did it hurt? The lobotomy, I mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If people read Mike's responses, he states that he has sources whom he believes are close to the matter and would support his claims. He also states that the blog posting clarifies confusion one may have over the title. He further points out that if those mentioned in the headline decide to seek action for this blog posting, not only are they likely to lose (the context details covered in the posting itself and the nature of a blog), but they would have to deal with a discovery process to get to the bottom of this.
[IANAL, and I don't know about the legal process details.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where did Mike say or suggest you had never been here before?
I think he questioned whether you know what this website is about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, that's perfectly legal in the UK. Ask the Daily Mail, who constantly squeeze out libelous headlines only to turn it around in the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me know how that goes. Also, let me know if you left the same messages concerning The Hollywood Reporter, which is saying the same thing I said.
In the meantime, you should suggest they refresh themselves on California's anti-SLAPP law, and the fact that any such lawsuit opens them up to discovery on these issues.
I'm perfectly willing to connect you or anyone from the publishers to my lawyers who will be happy to discuss this with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Music Publishers Settle With Limewire". How do you know this to be fact? Isn't it just as possible that "Limewire settles with Music Publishers"? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "Limewire and Music Publishers reach settlement"?
Then there is "Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question". Do you have any facts to back this up, or only opinion? You suggest you have "credible sources", but you don't want to mention them. Could they be the Limewire dude himself, feeding you his view of the story? After all, he wouldn't want to be seen as backing down. Could it be "according to Limewire, the music publishers are Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question"?
Two statements of fact, neither supported by anything other than you opinion. Like I said, keep the lawyer on speed dial.
Oh yeah, considering your servers are in Utah, that might the point of publication. Your "anti-slapp" rules wouldn't apply there, would they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/music-publishers-settle-copyright-case-165298
T his is why people say you have no morals: you think it's ok to lie about everything and anything; that, and the fact you defend the indefensible immoral behavior of stepping all over other people's rights.
[ 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:
They also won't have to spend millions more in court, and support a legal challenge that might end up in the supreme court. The sheer costs of doing such a thing might have been more than any of the parties really wanted to face.
We don't know. Not even Mike knows (but he thinks he does).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, I'm not saying whether it is saying those things or not, only that it could be construed as such, and thus what the other AC said was not true. So the other AC still has to admit that either he jumped to a conclusion, read the article from only his point of view, or stated a lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Hollywood Reporter piece makes it clear that it is only opinion, they didn't headline their story in a way to create fact that cannot be confirmed. They put a whole bunch of information and laid out some potential actions.
What they mentioned (and Mike didn't) was that each side agreed to pay their own legal fees. That sort of agreement, from what I have seen, seems to come when both sides think they have merit, and that the process for finding out which one is right is too far for either.
I could also, as an example, picture the Limewire guy basically saying that he will use all of the monies that could be obtained in this manner to fight the lawsuit, and that at the end there would be no money to get, and nothing but legal bills to pay.
It appears that both sides agreed to call it off rather than make their lawyers rich.
See how I did that? All of it is "appears","my opinion" and "I could picture". In other words, opinion. What Mike wrote (especially has the headline) was not fact, but opinion stated as fact, which he does often enough. Even his "in the story backpedal" makes it appear that it is fact, when it is not.
There is no jumping to conclusion, just calling out Mike for making sh-t up again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can argue about whether what they said agrees with or disagrees with Mike. Many are already having that discussion in these threads. I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that they said something "of the sort", which doesn't look favorably on the AC I originally replied to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I love it. You go on for 6 paragraphs about how it's important to preface opinions by stating it's an opinion, and then you make an opinionated statement (that I'm making shit up), without doing exactly what you claimed was necessary.
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. But it amuses greatly.
Keep it up, buddy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
Heh. It's neither, but seeing your desperation level increasing amuses me.
We're now pushing 200 comments here, and not a single person has presented anything to disprove the points I raised. Gee... I wonder why.
Also notice the guy promising a defamation lawsuit has gone quiet (on this thread, he's still active elsewhere).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You haven't presented any evidence that the publishers settled because they were "afraid" or because discovery "might prove a large segment of their business is based on pure fiction."
It's all bullshit without evidence, Mike. Faith-based FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Labels sued limewire for a billion dollars. The labels won and did so very quickly. Limewire appealed. The labels are still going through with it even though Limewire is asking them to air their dirty laundry.
The publishers sued limewire for a billion dollars. Limewire asked them to prove they actually owned the copyrights. Suddenly there is a settlement that isn't being touted very heavily by the publishers (not even mentioned on their own site), and the publishers are willing to pay their own legal fees.
In case that wasn't spelled out for you enough, try the following: When you sue someone for a billion dollars, but settle, lay low, and pay your own legal fees, you just got your rear end handed to you.
So I'll go ahead and state this as bona fide fact that you can run to the bank with: The NMPA lost big time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I thought they were infotainment...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Although it could possibly be such fine satire that we, er, I am just not intelligent enough to get it. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In order for it to be a lie it would have to be knowingly false. Mike is saying something that he believes to be true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"In order for it to be a lie it would have to be knowingly false."
Not quite. The trigger is wether ones knows or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN it was untrue. Subsequently Mike makes it clear he knows he didn't know, which means he SHOULD HAVE KNOWN his headline was at best misleading, if not ouright false.
That said, this isn't the kind of thing over which anyone would sue. Ask for a correction? Maybe. Sue? No. Piss off the editor/publisher who probably does have a journalism degree and probably does understand basic journalistic ethics? Almost certainly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not the definition of lie. Maybe defamation, but not lie. The common and dictionary definition is one who tells something that they know is false. Otherwise, you're just going by some definition that's practically unique to you and that most people don't subscribe to.
Besides, there is no way that Mike can reasonably know that his opinion is false here. There is really little to no evidence to suggest that his opinion is false and there is some circumstantial evidence to suggest it might be true.
But I suppose you like to misuse the word lie to spread FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FYI, the law has its own nomenclature and its own dictionaries which often diverge from "common" definitions. And had you actually bothered to read what I wrote, you might notice that I did not use the word "lie." Rather, I QUOTED someone else using that term. I also quite clearly stated that this was not actionable.
Now, did you have another point Miss Latella?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So? I assume you mean the common definition since the context seems to be within the common definition of the word.
"And had you actually bothered to read what I wrote, you might notice that I did not use the word "lie." Rather, I QUOTED someone else using that term. I also quite clearly stated that this was not actionable."
I was responding to Mar 8th, 2011 @ 9:49pm (kinda hard to keep track anymore) and I don't see that post quoting anyone else using that term. Mar 8th, 2011 @ 9:49pm also said that it's almost actionable but I never said that this person claimed that Mikes post is actionable. I was responding to the sentence "If you tell lies about people (or corporations) they are very likely to get upset about it, and ask you to correct it.", which falsely accuses Mike of being a liar. If anything, falsely calling someone a liar is defamation and, while INAL, I'm not so sure the legal definition of lie is generally that different than the common definition. Not that it hasn't been used differently, in different legal (and common) contexts, just that it probably generally means exactly what I defined it to mean, both legally and normally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, TMI Pete
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For people to settle specially and industry known for their bloody ways, something serious need to have happened, they wouldn't just pack and go away, they would want to set an example of Limewire and instead they lost their nerve and settled, why?
So where is the wrong in that everybody knows why they settled, they were afraid of something, speculating about what is no big deal then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
'Cause if they're talking legal action, well, that just outlandish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Trying to dig your awy out of a pile of BS with yet more BS doesn't cut it. If you can't cite these "multiple people," don't cite them. Journalism 101...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Since when? Journalists have long been known to conceal their sources. Stop making things up, it doesn't help your position any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Try getting an editor at any reputable publication to run your unchecked story with no verifiable sources, and under a sensationalistic headline, no less.
It's a myth that journalists don't reveal their sources. They almost always reveal them to their editor and/or publisher. They have to. It's called fact checking, and all reputable publications do it.
When you see, "an anonymous source" or something similar, it refers to a specific source vetted by or familar to the editor. "Some people say," OTOH, is, journalisitically speaking, entirely meaningless, especially as corroboration for your article.
Now, please stop making up stuff. You know, stuff like you know the first thing about the journalistic process. It doesn't help your position any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That seems like an assertion based on a lack of knowledge. Did you fact check that claim before stating it here?
Oh wait, it's okay for you to have an opinion... but when others do you attack them for it? Funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a fact that reputable publications fact check. It's a fact that this invariably involves checking sources. It's a fact that anyone with journalistic experience knows this. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is he has no journalistic experience.
Now, as this is a deduction, I left the premise open to correction or clarification. If he wishes to claim journalistic experience, he can do so. After all, he is the source.
I'd be willing to bet a bunch frog pelts he won't, because he doesn't have any journalistic experience, but that's speculation, which has been my one and only point all along. It's speculation with a solid basis, but it's speculation nonetheless.
You headline would have been just fine with any kind of qualifier. The problem I have is stating speculation, no mater how well founded it may be, as fact. I have no problem with the article. You are clear as to what you know and what you don't, but surmise. And you are, of course, perfectly entitled to any opinions you might express.
Now, you see, I didn't have to argue to imaginary authority by claiming I know because a couple of guys told me so. I referenced independently verifiable facts, applied logic and arrived at a conclusion. If you think my facts wrong, you are free to rebut them. But I'm not sure I can see how you can rebut the deduction. Logic: It's not just for breakfast anymore.
BTW, I appreciate your willingness to openly engage in debate. Good for you. My criticism isn't personal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...No? Thought so. You look at the Daily Mail. Or Fox. Or CNN. They do exactly the same thing. And yet that's "journalism". Uh-huh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, did you have a particular fact you wished to rebut in some way? Do. Or is ad hominem the very apogee of your rhetorical abilities?
And, BTW, not that it matters, other than I find it poersonall offesive, but no, I do not watch Fox or CNN, nor do I read the Daily Mail. If I read a Brit paper, and I do from time to time, it's usually The Guardian. Used to read the Times. Before Murdoch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I actually agree with you, regarding the Times; since Murdoch took it over, it appears to have suffered reputationally.
Moreover, I can be very...caustic sometimes. IT's nothing personal either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't want to be caustic, you want to be mordacious. It's way cooler.
[ 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:
I think part of the problem is over this phrase you stated earlier:
> If you can't cite these "multiple people," don't cite them. Journalism 101...
I think the comment that followed that one (from the person you believe "obviously" is not a journalist) may not have interpreted your phrase above as you intended.
Can you clarify what you meant in saying, if you can't cite someone then don't cite someone?
Did you mean different things in each use of "cite", or did you leave some thoughts out, or was it your intention simply to say that a dog is a dog?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now you're just deliberately obfuscating the issue. Since the context of the discussion involves Mike not revealing his sources to the public, then it should be obvious that I am referring to public source revelation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have evidence that Mike, the author, did not reveal his sources to Mike, the publisher?
You then added,
>> When you see, "an anonymous source" or something similar, it refers to a specific source vetted by or familar to the editor.
Do you have evidence that Mike, the editor, has not vetted and is not familiar with the alleged sources claimed by Mike, the author?
Until you provide such evidence, I think the AC above made a legitimate point in saying,
> Journalists have long been known to conceal their sources.
as a reply to you alleging that Mike the publisher, editor, or author has to cite his sources in the above piece.
And from this, I do not see how you can logically conclude about the AC:
> Ahem, you obviously have zero journalistic experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forgive Mike...
No matter, us smart users understand what teh truth is.
This blog was never about the stories, more about the comments and discussion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forgive Mike...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Forgive Mike...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike may have an agenda but, and from reading TD for several years now, I've found his agenda to be: Why don't corporations, etc, think about what they do before getting all defensive & suing the shit out of people, getting laws created or changed & stifling technological progression (be it bad or good for those with an interest in selling products).
For those that believe telling people to think is an agenda, perhaps you missed the point of 1984.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FUD is all this blog deals in, day in and day out. That's why no one takes it seriously.
I noticed its frequency in showing up high in Google searches dropped dramatically after Google's recent algorithm tweak. Whoops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's not true, Mike has pointed out several times in the past that many of the posters IP addresses have come from interested corporations. Sure, the corporations are probably better at concealing that now, but it doesn't change the fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which everyone knows is a hilarious lie... kinda like the title of the above article.
A person that lies and misrepresents more often than not is impossible to take seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He may not generally/always look at IP addresses, but that doesn't mean he never does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe you're confused here. I will, occasionally, look at IP addresses if someone does something to make me wonder. But I don't look at them as a matter of course. I think your confusion comes from times when I've pointed out that it was obvious who someone was even when I had not looked at their IP address. But that does not mean I have never looked at IP addresses. That would be silly.
Which everyone knows is a hilarious lie... kinda like the title of the above article.
The only lie was your claim that I said I do not.
So let's see, will you retract your lie? Of course not...
A person that lies and misrepresents more often than not is impossible to take seriously.
Again, I have done neither here. You on the other hand...
But, the good thing is that I know who takes me seriously. So, since lots of people do take me seriously, it seems to suggest you may be the one misjudging here.
Want to try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You look at IP addresses all the time and you know it. You and your ego can't help but to do so.
Is there a day that goes by where you don't lie about something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...Sorry, Mike, couldn't resist. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For someone accusing me of making totally unfounded statements based on a total lack of knowledge, I just have to laugh, since the above statement is exactly that. Not only is it a totally unfounded statement based on a total lack of knowledge, it's also wrong.
Our system makes it pretty difficult for me to see IP addresses. I can look them up, but it's not particularly easy, and I don't do it very often. Just when I'm curious to see if a hunch about where someone is coming from is correct.
So, I'm curious, why is it okay for you to make blatantly false statements about me, but when I make an informed statement based on evidence, it's somehow horrible? I would appreciate an honest answer.
[ 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:
Can you explain how that holds up against the Techdirt privacy policy? Oh, where is that page again?
[ 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: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, but Mike is suffering a real credibility problem these days. It seems that almost every day he does something that takes away a little more credibility too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's like he's on a self-destructive FUD streak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A smart person can add the dots together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I did not check the IP. 6 has said that in the past. It was no secret. Thanks for playing.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's your opinion.
It's well known that companies hire shills to go around message boards trying to boost company image, quell dissent etc. Most do it better than you though, with your predictable usage of FUD. I bet the debating society had fun against you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No it isn't.
But it's something freetards love to con themselves into thinking is true.
As a music person, and not a nerd/leech/worthless-to-society parasite, I came here because Masnick's bullshit was showing up too high in Google searches and had to be called out.
And thanks to Google, it's not nearly the problem it once was :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No it isn't."
Yes it is. You may think that you have successfully concealed your activities, but you have failed. It is well known.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"The likelihood that any AC works for one of the publishers is zero."
They know better, this person might even be a corporate shill himself, but being that these people obviously have absolutely no regard for morality or truth whatsoever, they will happily lie without a second thought and call everyone a crazy conspiracy theorist for not believing their lies. Their opinion is so far off base with reality yet they continue to insist that anyone that disagrees with them is a crazy conspiracy theorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
epic facepalm strikes again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't talk about being anonymous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I worked for a risk management company for a work term the other year. I was helping to maintain the website. One of the things the guys in the office were working on was a 'persona organizer', a term which maybe a month prior I might've had to define for you guys, but . . .
We didn't put in anything about hiding IP's. And I'm almost certain that if the company was using that persona manager for shilling, (Very likely, given the number of astroturf sites the website we maintained linked to), they wouldn't have thought to hide IP's.
"Ah, that's computer stuff. The computer guys probably took care of it"
After all, why waste your skilled labourers doing a job that a retard can, and often does, do? And why inform the company if you're doing something blatantly unethical?
As it is, I can't think of an ethical use for a persona organizer that was required to handle and auto-create 'at least 100 accounts per website'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not (only) the type of 'shilling' we might be seeing on this blog, which I can't comment on, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure people who work for big companies do post here from time to time. That's not shilling. Nor have I ever seen anything to make me think they are prohibited from posting here. I've worked in and around the biz for decades, though always on the independent side. I'm not shilling.
Have you ever considered the possiblity that intelligent people with intimate knowledge of the many complex issues involved just might disagree with you? Quel horor! Yep, its's true.
BTW, you've been nominated for an Irony Cross. Accusing someone of an inability to debate with nothing but pure, unadulturated ad hominem? Impressive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure people who work for big companies do post here from time to time. That's not shilling. Nor have I ever seen anything to make me think they are prohibited from posting here. I've worked in and around the biz for decades, though always on the independent side. I'm not shilling.
For what it's worth, I agree with the above. I seriously doubt that anyone's been hired to post such viewpoints here. While I know plenty of folks from within the industries we discuss here comment, I assume they do it of their own free will, not because of some job requirement. While I'm amused at the amount of time some of them seem to spend here, rather than doing their real jobs, I doubt that commenting here is part of their real job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Sounds like a couple of ACs work for the publishers & know exactly what happened."
Could be true and this statement
"The likelihood that any AC works for one of the publishers is zero"
Is likely false. How does he know the likelihood is zero? Does he personally know all of the posters with which he agrees with? Or is it just a wild guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He presents no real reasoning for his opinions and no proof of where Mike allegedly said the things he said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When people with direct conflicts of interest often post here, that's shilling.
Sure, to some extent the general public and members of the general public have an interest in the matter, but if their position is good for them as members of the public, then their positions is likely good for most members of the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So then you admit that the statement
"The likelihood that any AC works for one of the publishers is zero"
is likely false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hmm. I hadn't even thought of checking this since we're not even close to a "content farm," but this comment made me go look. According to our analytics, the two weeks prior to Google's algo shift, we received 22% of our traffic from searches. After the change, we received 27% of traffic from Google searches. And our traffic is up the past two weeks.
So. Um. Yeah. Data. Says you're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think Google gives lots of preference to recent material, and I think that is why this site ranks high frequently.. because it has so many fresh postings on current events of various nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sounds more like someone needs some new tinfoil for their hat. Man, talk about piling on the logical fallacies...
Suffice it to say that you are entirely wrong, which is very possibly why you can't begin to make any kind of logical argument to support your wild-ass knee-jerk "deduction."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you have evidence of this? You are making a positive claim and there is at least some evidence to suggest he is right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sort of how in the other case the labels were displeased with having to prove the magic numbers they claim as losses with real factual information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But if you get a bad hand, fold before going all in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://torrentfreak.com/limewire-settles-with-record-labels-still-faces-1-billion-c laim-110308/
The most interesting part is this extract...
"The case dragged on and in recent weeks dozens of documents were submitted to the court in a noteworthy side-battle. To get to the bottom of how the music industry sets up licensing deals with other Internet companies, LimeWire subpoenaed internal emails from Apple, Amazon, Yahoo, Google, MySpace and others.
Thus far a quarter million pages of emails have been collected, leading LimeWire to draw some interesting conclusions. Among other things, they found that unauthorized downloads actually boosted the revenue of music labels, and that their income took a dive when LimeWire shut down."
While it doesn't prove Mike's opinion on why it was settled.. It does make it look more like it was the publishers themselves that backed out for fear of ruining their own case...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would not doubt that Limewire (like Mike) can come up with enough data to support their point of view. Given enough chance, you can turn a monkey into a President (some say that was done with Shrub Bush). If you select your data carefully, use the right blurry video, you can make it look like a missle hit the pentagon on 9/11 and the extra plane just disappeared somewhere else nobody knows where.
I wouldn't take Torrent Freak as a reputable news source. However, it does suggest to me that their "source" and Mike's "source" are the same, the owner of Limewire, spinning it to the very end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WOW
WOW Mike... It seems that you really touched a nerve with this one. What I find interesting is why so many people feel so strongly about this. Ok so, Limewire is down. Limewire Pirate Edition is up and running and so is Frostwire and many other P2P networks. So why do people care so much about your opinion of why the music publisher's suit was settled?
This reminds me of the demise of Napster. The recording industry proudly beat their drums and declared the beast dead.
I love this comment....
"FUD is all this blog deals in, day in and day out. That's why no one takes it seriously."
And Limewire is gone and all those people that don't take this blog seriously have awakened and realize that file sharing is bad. Thank you RIAA/MPAA for saving us from ourselves. I need to run out an buy some music now that that file sharing is over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WOW
Enjoy being the guy everyone calls a leech behind your back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WOW
Most people call multi-million dollar entertainers the leechers...and they don't do it behind anyone's back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WOW
It must suck to go through life living a lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: WOW
Or . . . maybe it's the j-metal I listen?
Wait, it's definitely connected to my record collection! Puccini is definitely profiting from my collection of classical records!
[/sarc]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The vast majority of artists are not in higher income brackets. And even the very few who are generally employ thousands of other people who are not. Not to mention, who decides? Where do you draw the line? How rich must one be before you think it's ok to steal from them?
I talked to one these "rich" artists today. She's been busting her ass for many years, now, putting out CD's regulalry, all on small independent labels. Lots of critical acclaim, but she barely gets by.
A week or so ago she put out a best of collection. A day later it was available for download. Now, it's boob bait on data mining/marketing websites. "Click here to download free!"
It's virtually impossible to make money touring, though she plays 200+ dates/yr, so she relies on CD sales. If she sells 5 or 10,000 copies, she can pay her bills. Last week she got an $18,000 medical bill for her son she can't pay and you think it's ok to steal from her becasue she's rich?
My gut reaction is to tell you're scum. But you're probably not. You just haven't thought it through. Real people are really being hurt. My gut reaction is due to the fact that I know some of these real people. Don't take it personally. But do educate yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your gut reaction is 100% correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They say that it's time to get help if you ask yourself a question, and then answer yourself.
I'd say it's time to get help AC/Peter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just because her "best off" compliation made it to a
torrent doesn't mean that anyone downloaded it or in any significant numbers, you haven't provided the name of the artist, the name of the album and where you saw it available for download, I'd need them to check your story out. Also anyone that did download it you cannot prove that they listened to it then deleted it or maybe went on to buy it, provide more info and maybe we could see if her sales increased.
Just because you like doing something doesn't mean that your entitled to make money at it, if she cannot, for whatever reason and p2p may not be a major factor, make a living at making music then sorry tough, move on, either innovate and try and get people to buy your product, that's what CwF+RtB is all about, or do something else.
Regarding her £18,000 medical bill... you live in the US, lifes a bitch, you want universal healthcare vote for someone that wants it too, she can't pay the bill because she isn't making any money doing what she likes to do, and right now your case that this is all down to p2p filesharing has not been made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Great, but that's not new content, is it? How is she marketing that toward new fans, since most existing fans will already own the trakcs in question? Is there added value that would encourage existing fans to buy? Has she engaged the fans to see if these are the songs they consider the "best", rather than just going by sales figures?
Is she actually taking steps to gather new fans and sell to them, or is she just assuming that tours and CDs are the only ways for her to make a living? What steps is she taking to protect herself in the new market realities of the 21st century?
"A day later it was available for download."
So what? if she's operating in the modern music industry without realising that was inevitable, she's a moron. But, this means nothing. Its availability for download has nothing to do with whether or not a single sale was lost.
It's tempting to assume that every download is a lost sale, but this is never a valid assumption. Maybe some sales were lost, maybe she gained more paying fans for her gigs, who would not have bought the album if the download was not available. Nobody knows, and you shouldn't pretend you do.
"It's virtually impossible to make money touring, though she plays 200+ dates/yr"
She has to work 200 days per year! Oh no, that's over half the year! She's like every other self-employed person on the damn planet! Don't people realise musicians are special and shouldn't need to work for their living after they've produced a CD?
Apologies for the sarcasm, but if "she has to work instead of just collecting royalties" is the worst you can come up with, my sympathies are low.
"Last week she got an $18,000 medical bill for her son she can't pay"
I'm sorry that your country's healthcare system is so screwed up that this is even possible. But, why can't she afford it? Did she not have insurance, or did the insurance deny her? Did she piss away all the income she's already received on drugs and booze, or did she just not bother to save in case of future disasters or loss of income, pretending that CD sales would continue forever?
I'm not saying she did that, by the way, but since you don't identify her, it's a possibility and some people do that - that is, fail to protect themselves against the future and then complain about their hard lives when luck goes against them.
"you think it's ok to steal from her becasue she's rich?"
I certainly don't, even if she was rich. But, it's unclear who you're responding to here. Perhaps you can address that person by replying to their post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As I read your comment, I thought to myself, this smells to me like another example of a sad story claimed "as assertion of fact that makes my teeth itch."
Then I thought, "what kind of idiot would read a [sad story] and assume maybe it was well researched and independetly verified with multiple sources?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe it's just me...
Secondly, even IF Mike is completely wrong here, I still like his error rate over that of various mainstream media outlets who've never met a press release they didn't like enough to post as "news." If he's got some spin on the story, so does every other outlet, whether it's Fox or NPR or CNN.
Plus, even if he is completely wrong, what harm has he done? It's not like this is an instance of blindly following the crowd and talking thousands, if not millions, of parents out of vaccinating their kids because of a tenuous (and ultimately false) link to autism. Or branding an entire group of people as rapists, or possible rapists, or at the very least rape enablers and sympathizers.
If he smears the major labels and their publishers a bit, they'll walk it off and circle the lawyers. It's not as if anyone's health or wellbeing or personal reputation (other than Mike's, possibly) is at stake.
You may not like his take, but you have nothing on hand to refute it. And you already know you don't like his take, but yet you show up in every thread to remind us of that fact. Good for you. Everyone appreciates badly applied tenacity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not just you.
To restate your point: so what if it is?
Is there some sort of prize system involved in the outcome of this here at TechDirt? Were spiral cut smoked hams promised somewhere? Lifetime supplies of of the San Francisco treat? Coupons for one free drink at a chain restaurant? (sorry, I'm hungry and can only think of food-related rewards that were never offered at the moment)
With empty hand and misplaced ire, methinks they doth trolleth too much.
*lights out for lunch*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opinions can't really be refuted. One can agree or not. Assertions, OTOH...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I've said it over and over again, Mike is entitled to his opinion. I may agree or disagree, but that has not been the basis of any of my criticisims of Mike's article.
The only problem I have with the article is the headline as assertion of fact. I don't know if his supposition is correct. I do know it's a supposition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fiction
Surely everyone already knew that, as publishers, more than half their business is based on fiction - the rest being non-fiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC: Mike, you're a big fat liar!
Mike: Not really. It's my opinion based on all the facts I gathered.
(Same?) AC: Liar, liar, pants on fire!
Mike: Not really. Read the post. Gather your own facts. It makes sense.
(Yet again, the same) AC: ILL SUE THE S*** OUT OF YOU
Mike: Uh...good luck with that.
(This is getting boring because it's the same) AC: You are an immoral child abusing terrorist pirate!
Mike: WTF man!?
(Oh look, what a surprise! It's the same) AC: Liar!!1111oneoneelevenonehundred!!1
Mike: Sigh...it's gotta be tuesday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Limewire 2011
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Afraid
Followup: Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question
Article Content: Observation and Opinion
Keywords: music, settle, copyrights
Odd that anyone with a reasonable disposition and basic understanding and familiarity of/with Internet outlets can get upset over this headline. The entire string of ... debate is ass. If anybody derives "Fact" from the word "Afraid" in the title and is not satiated by reading the article was, quite simply, looking to bash heads. Knuckle dragging bully with a general inability to segment news and blogs and limewire into their respective categories.
And all this bashing of the people providing the content is ass too. Drag your bloody knuckles to the comments sections at CNN or DailyKos or some other equally low lying level of audience participation.
Pages and pages of ass comment on someone's opinion that a page title is all facts. Yeah, that's nice. Mission Accomplished
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Afraid
It is implied, but like much of what happens on this site, we are just "suppose to know". That wouldn't stand up in a court of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Afraid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Afraid
I'm wondering if you people put this much effort arguing with actual journalists who print actual lies, or if you're just obtuse for the hell of it.
Anyway, from Techdirt's about page:
"...a group blogging effort, the Techdirt blog..."
From dictionary.com:
"–noun
1.
a web site containing the writer's or group of writers' own experiences, observations, opinions, etc., ..."
So, Techdirt classes itself as a blog. A blog is generally categorised as a source of opinion, not hard fact. Either you're arguing semantics pointlessly, or you can't tell the difference between an opinion blog and a source of objective journalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Afraid
An opinion blog still doesn't give license to put up dishonest or unsupported material in the guise of being fact. "Music Publishers Settle With Limewire; Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question" - this is a statement of fact not supported by anything in the story. It is Mike's opinion, but stated as fact.
Heck, a few months from now, he will like here with the old "we have already shown that the music industry is afraid to fight in court" when that fact has not be shown.
Sorry Paul, you are on the losing side of this one. Mike blew it, he knows he blew it (it's why he is here trying so hard to defend himself), and he won't admit it. It's really too bad, his crediblity suffers greatly when he does this sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Afraid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Afraid
I think that most people realise this is an opinion site. I also can't think of many blogs off the top of my head that make this distinction. Can you name others that feel the need, or are you just pushing this pointless argument for Mike's benefit?
" It is Mike's opinion, but stated as fact."
Yet explained nicely on the body of the text. Professional journalists do this all the time, why complain about an opinion site when there's so many bigger offenders out there?
I do agree that maybe a less conclusive headline may have been more appropriate, but it hardly deserves the reaction it's getting from you given the nature of the site.
Really, this is an astoundingly minor issue, and I wouldn't even have commented if it weren't for boredom at work. What's your excuse?
"Mike blew it, he knows he blew it"
Now look at who's making assumptions and stating them as fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Afraid
Sorry if I get confused. When is news not news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Afraid
Do you just blindly go onto every site and assume that they are reporting sites and not blogging sites or do you do a modicum of research first?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Afraid
Like a lot of analysis that would seem to imply content that includes both facts, opinions and an occasional fantasy induced impetuous comment (i.e. Intelligence Analysis)
\r
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Afraid
It's nice when you actually LOOK instead of whine, complain, and assume.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Afraid
Is the privacy policy on that page too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you please block IP for the ACtRollbots? They don't contribute to the discussion, they get everyone off topic, and they are a waste of pixels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Still wrong mind, but suggest it's a more likely scenario.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look back up the thread and see how many of the posts are just ad hominem attacks, ad ludicrum arguments or completely off topic.
As I said, filtering is the wrong answer but it would make it easier to get to the real arguments on (and from) either side.
Now would you care to revise your extrapolation?
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]