Copyright Industries Massive Success Shows That They're Dying And Need More Draconian Copyright Laws?

from the say-what-now? dept

Thu, Nov 3rd 2011 2:38pm — Mike Masnick

One of the favorite misleading tricks of supporters of more draconian copyright laws is to put out a report each year about the "size" of "the copyright industries," by the "International Intellectual Property Alliance" (a trade group made up of other trade groups, including the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, ESA, NMPA and others) There are numerous problems with this report. First off, it makes the ridiculously wrong assumption that "the copyright industries" exist solely because of copyright law. That is, they use the size of the numbers to suggest that stronger copyright law is necessary. Yet that's ridiculous. They present no evidence that the industries would be any different size, if copyright law were weaker or stronger. They simply present that as the obvious implication. Furthermore, their definition of what makes up "the copyright industries" is insanely broad, and tends to include plenty of operations who don't actually want stricter copyright laws at all. For example, I'm sure Techdirt technically qualifies under whatever measure they're using. After all, we're a publisher, so technically we're in "the content industries." Yet I can tell you right now that exactly zero percent of our revenue is due to copyright law. That's true of many, many of the companies included as being in "the copyright industries."

Unfortunately, this myth persists that if you add up all of the broadly defined "content industries," it somehow shows why you need stricter copyright. But that makes no sense. If they actually showed a direct causal relationship -- or even any evidence that copyright policy directly drives aggregate revenue, they might have some argument. But they don't go near such things. But it doesn't stop grandstanding around the issue. With the latest release, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Orrin Hatch, along with Reps. Bob Goodlatte and Adam Schiff, welcomed the various lobbyists who produced this report (i.e., the heads of the ESA, NMPA, RIAA and MPAA) to cheer on the report and use it to falsely pretend this is proof that more draconian copyright laws are important.

This makes no sense and, frankly, it insults the intelligence of just about everyone, to pretend that total revenue within an industry is the automatic indicator of how policy should be determined for that industry. You determine policies based on deltas, not absolutes.

It gets even worse, when you look at the actual report, which shows the industries in question are doing tremendously well. In fact, as many are noting, the report actually appears to undermine the industry's entire argument that "piracy" is somehow decimating their businesses. Instead -- even through a recession, these companies are making a ton of money, and there's no evidence of significant job losses.

It's a pretty weak move when our Congressional leaders to then take those points, that simply do not support the need for more copyright law in any way... and then use it to support such policies. Each year, of course, CCIA puts out a report that shows that if that's how you're going to calculate "the copyright industries," it's only fair to use the same methodology to calculate the industries that are built from "exceptions to copyright law," which turns out to be significantly larger than "the copyright industries." So if any of the elected officials praising this latest report are intellectually honest, they should actually be advocating for weaker copyright laws. After all, the same methodology shows that exceptions to copyright law contribute much more to the economy than copyright law itself.

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, copyright industries, orrin hatch, sheldon whitehouse, studies
Companies: bsa, esa, iipa, mpaa, nmpa, riaa

142 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 2:50pm

you said 0 percent of your revenue comes from copyright law.... yet you're a blog critisizing copyright law. without that law you would have no revenue and indeed no website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 2:57pm
  
  Re:
  Yes, copyright is the only field in "tech" to blog about.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 3:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    just like straw men are the only ones worth knocking down
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 3:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Specially those that praise the myth of copyrights.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 3:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        lolwut?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Groove Tiger (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:23pm
  
  Re:
  Clearly most politicians' revenue comes from drugs. They spend a lot of their time criticizing drugs. Without drugs they would have no revenue and indeed no career in politics.
  
  Clearly your revenue comes from Mike's blog. You're always posting comments criticizing Mike's blog. Without Mike's blog, you would have no revenue and indeed no comments.
  
  Clearly movie makers' revenue come from piracy. They constantly criticize piracy. Without piracy they would have no revenue and indeed no movies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:08pm
  
  Re:
  +10
  
  and Floor 64, Step 2, and "techdirt" are all 'copyrighted', as are the adds google put on this site, providing Mike his revenue..
  
  Hypocrite:
  
  A person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc. that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
  
  A person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - teka, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:34pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Do you actually think about the things you are going to write before you type them out?
    
    Do you know what "copyrighted" means, and why Floor64, Step 2 and techdirt are not an example of this?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      they are 'trademarks' and trademarks are protected under copyright law.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 7:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't think so.
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade-Mark_Cases
        
        More like under the Lanham Act.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 7:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sup_01_15.html
        
        Trademarks are under Title 15
        TITLE 15�COMMERCE AND TRADE
        
        Quote:
        
        The Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879), were a set of three cases consolidated into a single appeal before the United States Supreme Court, which in 1879 ruled that the Copyright Clause of the Constitution gave Congress no power to protect or regulate trademarks. 100 U.S. 82 (1879). Congress then passed the Trade Mark Act of 1881, which was based on the Commerce Clause power, and therefore passed constitutional muster.
        
        Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade-Mark_Cases
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 1:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Please never comment on anything ever again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rich, 4 Nov 2011 @ 5:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        THIS is an example of the intelligence level of the trolls here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - RadialSkid (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 10:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        trademarks are protected under copyright law
        
        BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
        
        Oh my god, no. No, they aren't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I marked this as "funny".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 3:08pm

Bottom line profits of companies are not a good indication of a healthy business environment, only an indication of good management.

WB is the perfect example, a company that is basically shrinking it's way into profitability, by cutting jobs and axing parts of their business.

The music industry in the US has seen it's sales shrink from slightly more than 11 million in 2005 to 4.5 billion in 2009 (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_music_industry_market_share_data ), meaning that any company currently showing a profit has done so by cutting their expenses at a similar rate, done mostly by lowering staff counts.

The ARS Technica numbers are somewhat misleading, mostly because it ignores the massive increase in technology in use, especially worldwide. The explosion of home computers, smart phones, and the like are all parts of that "core" group (operating systems and other software), and would reflect that sort of gain.

It should be noted that the sales of technology are often trailing indicators, as companies do appear to try to fix their bottom lines by trying to improve productivity as they shrink the bottom line.

To draw a conclusion that the Music industry, example, is "Healthy" with sales off more than 50% in 5 years is pretty dishonest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 3:14pm
  
  Re:
  Isn't it dishonest to say that the music industry's health can be reflected by the sale of flimsy plastic disks?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 3:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The recorded music industry sells music on vinyl, CD, mp3, and 24 bit high fidelity files.
    
    The variety of mediums in which they offer their product are not the problem, and you know it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The recorded music industry sells music on vinyl, CD, mp3, and 24 bit high fidelity files.
      
      The variety of mediums in which they offer their product are not the problem, and you know it.
      
      So they sell music in one specialty format, one obsolete format, one overpriced format, and one overpriced specialty format.
      
      Yeah, I just can't figure out why they aren't succeeding...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        the only one of these that could be considered overpriced is cds, and since I last checked, even those are generally cheaper than they were 5-7 years. Certainly have not kept pace with inflation.
        
        And itunes charging .99 is too much?? LOL
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Compared to affiliate fees that are used to pay for music that is streamed to millions of people for free and are in the ballpark of $0.20/month for the entire catalog of a label yes $0.99 for one song is a bit pricy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 7:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And itunes charging .99 is too much?? LOL
        
        If they could make more money at a lower price... yes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Was it the lawsuits against dead people and little kids?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What I do know is that in that table used to claim dishonesty on the part of some, the digital sales are not included.
      
      CD's and DVD's will shrink like Vinyl sales did, so the really dishonest party here is claiming harm without being able to prove it, because that money didn't come from nowhere, if it is not coming from unit sales of physical media it is coming from elsewhere, and that just proves that despite claims to the contrary the industry already found ways to make money that don't depend on physical sales of anything.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 8:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's a lawsuit to protect the dead. Think of the dead! What will they do when their copyrights expire?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:05pm
  
  Re:
  To draw a conclusion that the Music industry, example, is "Healthy" with sales off more than 50% in 5 years is pretty dishonest.
  
  This.
  
  I guess we're back to Masnick suggesting piracy isn't really a problem again.
  
  All one has to do is look at:
  
  1. The number of layoffs that have occurred the past decade at both major and indie labels and other industry associated companies.
  
  2. Production budgets are a fraction of what they used to be; a band that used to get 25k or 100k advance now gets 5k or 20k. Less time is spent writing, as the artist has to provide for himself in other ways. Less time is spent in the studio creating; a worse product results.
  
  3. The above means less employment all along the food chain: musicians, labels, studios, PR companies etc.
  
  This is not conjecture. They are objectively observable facts.
  
  There is no reason to imagine why the government would not want to provide assistance and help remedy this when illegal behavior is the root cause for these problems.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "There is no reason to imagine why the government would not want to provide assistance and help remedy this when illegal behavior is the root cause for these problems."
    
    Because it's not the governments job to regulate an industry's size by outlawing behavior that should be legal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That consuming works without permission should be legal is your opinion.
      
      I suggest you encourage governments to repeal copyright law if that's how you feel.
      
      Good luck with that.
      
      Until then, if you wish to live in a society, you respect the laws of the society in which you live.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "That consuming works without permission should be legal is your opinion."
        
        That permission should be needed is your opinion. You are free to follow your own opinions on your own. Don't force your personal opinions on others through bad laws.
        
        "I suggest you encourage governments to repeal copyright law if that's how you feel."
        
        Part of the purpose of these discussions is to discuss these issues and to hopefully get governments to pass more reasonable copy protection laws.
        
        "Until then, if you wish to live in a society, you respect the laws of the society in which you live."
        
        Who said otherwise?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "That permission should be needed is your opinion. You are free to follow your own opinions on your own. Don't force your personal opinions on others through bad laws."
        
        lol.
        
        That the law is bad is your personal opinion...etc., etc.
        
        You guys could go around on that all day.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 5:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "That the law is bad is your personal opinion."
        
        Well, yeah, it is my opinion. and it's the opinion of many others. Which is part of the purpose of this discussion, to discuss the issue.
        
        "There is no reason to imagine why the government would not want to provide assistance and help remedy this when illegal behavior is the root cause for these problems."
        
        is false because it assumes that the laws themselves are good. If the laws are bad, which is what we are discussing here, then there indeed is a reason for a government not to provide the assistance necessary to enforce bad laws. Instead, the government should repeal them.
        
        So no one is going around in circles. It's just that IP maximists are missing the point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 5:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Crosbie- it's your opinion that the laws are bad.
        
        It's the creator's opinion that the laws are good.
        
        So two conflicting opinions.
        
        The creators contribute something to society, whereas the pirates don't.
        
        It's a no-brainer which side the government is going to support.
        
        But feel free to debate that till you're blue in the face.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 5:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How do you know pirates contribute nothing?
        Do you know if they pay taxes or not?
        They probably pay more taxes than creators do since the bottom of society is the one that pays more than half the taxes the US government collects.
        
        Without pirates you would have customers, because are pirates who buy things the others don't care.
        
        Furthermore, no laws will effect cultural change if people don't want to change no matter how hard some people try.
        
        But feel free to debate that till you're blue in the face.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They probably pay more taxes than creators do since the bottom of society is the one that pays more than half the taxes the US government collects.
        
        Yeah, you're wrong. Again.
        
        http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html
        
        Without pirates you would have customers
        
        ha, well at least you got one thing correct.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        IP maximists should stop talking to themselves already. We already know they try to pretend to be critics to make IP critics look bad. The federal government even tried to request that Mike remove a post that an IP maximist did this with.
        
        Stop building your own strawman and shooting it down. Why don't you, instead, focus your efforts on countering the real arguments.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110919/01530216000/us-marshals-service-asks-us-to-remove-comment. shtml
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That compared to 60% of corporations that pay no taxes.
        
        http://www.alternet.org/economy/150387/2_3rds_of_us_corporations_pay_zero_federal_taxes%3A _us_uncut_movement_builds_to_make_them_pay_up
        
        Well somebody is paying those taxes is not the rich, is not the poor and it is not companies, so it has to be the middle class.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 5:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "It's the creator's opinion that the laws are good."
        
        It's part of the copy protection industry's opinion that the laws are good. You don't represent the opinions of all creators. Maybe some, but not all.
        
        and no one is forcing creators to create. People will create perfectly fine without IP. If creators don't want people to copy their works, they can find another job. Receiving a free monopoly from society that society must pay and modify its behavior to enforce is not something any creator is entitled to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 5:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (to enforce and abide by *)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The creators contribute something to society"
        
        If a creator wants to contribute something in return for an IP privilege, I'd rather him or her find another job instead. Society doesn't owe any IP holders the effort necessary to abide by and enforce these laws and no IP holder should be allowed to require others to undergo such a burden.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We understand your stance on this, re: go find another job, etc. You're ignoring all benefits and a system that society has embraced for centuries with no problem.
        
        It's delusional. You're tilting at windmills.
        
        Please go expound your anger on something more important.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, proclaim your position to be true, provide no logic, argumentation, or evidence to support your position, call others delusional, and expect others to take you seriously.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Suggesting copyright law be repealed is a thoroughly delusional thought. It isn't going to happen. Sorry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Suggesting and expecting are two different things. There is nothing delusional about suggesting it. If people want IP laws repealed, that's what they ought to express. How is a representative government supposed to know what people want if they don't express it. That's not to mean I should expect it to be repealed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have news for you copyright law is already repealed inside society, nobody fallows it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Please go expound your anger on something more important."
        
        If it's not important, then why are you here expounding all this effort on this subject? and who are you to determine whats important? Perhaps different things are important to different people.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 10:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Two points of contention to this: Creators do not necessarily support copyright, the middlemen do. They are the ones make the big bucks on all of this. Secondly, not all creators 'contribute' in any meaningful way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think you got thinks mixed is not the people who need to ask the government to repeal anything is the government who needs to convince people not to do it anymore.
        
        Good luck with that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think you got thinks mixed is not the people who need to ask the government to repeal anything is the government who needs to convince people not to do it anymore.
        
        Good luck with that.
        
        There are very few Judge William Adams in the US.
        
        Judge William Adams beats daughter for using the internet
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Unfortunately for you I don't need to respect your laws, inside my society nobody cares.
        Nothing bad will come of it, if I don't, just to prove it I will now engage in piracy and rip something.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And you wonder there are new bills being passed, 3 strikes laws, etc.
        
        You just explained it in a nutshell.
        
        The way society works is that people either police themselves or the government does it for them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Until people get angry and you bozos start running.
        
        Hey Hussein when are you going to start your run?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 10:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If a society does not respect the laws of a government, and the government moves to enforce these laws, it is the responsibility of that society to remove the old government and enact a new one that follows the will of the people.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Society isn't going to remove government just so you can steal music, you moronic freetard.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I believe you are not capable of respecting all the laws of the land.
        
        Plus I want to see anybody that will respect a monopoly of life + 95 years that gives anybody the power to say how and when something should be consumed and for which people need to keep paying and are labelled criminals if they don't jump 3 times before asking for permission.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Furthermore I want to see the dumbass that will follow laws that are detrimental to his own interests.
        
        Anybody who wants to enforce a monopoly on others can't really expect people not to find ways around that, specially when it will be abused and it is eroding due process and free speech.
        
        Between those 2 and your rights, I know where I will stand when the shit hits the fan.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Greevar (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 4:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://torrentfreak.com/i-dont-care-about-your-profits-and-it-enrages-me-that-you-think-i-should-110 911/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Are you suggesting that "sharing" with the world via P2P is something that should be legal under all circumstances and applicable to all industries that deal in digital goods?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't know what he is implying but I definitely think it should with all my heart.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    But there's more music being made today than at any other point in history. Oh! That's right. Only label music counts as real music.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      There's more people in the world than at any point in history too.
      
      Your statement has nothing to do with anything.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or just stupid - but you cannot deny that the digital era brought much easier access to tools and distribution, and that resulted in an explosion of music availability. Whether or not you feel that's relevant to this debate about the health of the industry, let's please not be silly and pretend that it's not true or that the quantity of music is a mere correlation with population.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's wonderful that technology has provided easier ways to create music and to self-distribute.
        
        To say I'm arguing otherwise is ridiculous and a strawman.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's wonderful that technology has provided easier ways to create music and to self-distribute.
        
        Okay - I'm glad we agree on that.
        
        To say I'm arguing otherwise is ridiculous and a strawman.
        
        Well, you did say "there's more people in the world than at any point in history too" which to me seemed to be saying that the increase in music is merely due to the increase in population. I guess I was wrong. Thanks for clarifying.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Otherwise, why mention an increasing population? How is that relevant?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 5:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why would that imply "merely"?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So more music being made has nothing to do with anything, then what are you complaining about?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And yours also.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That was the point. Neither statement has anything to do with the matter being discussed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You be wrong.
        Why do copyright exists?
        
        The whole purpose of it, is to promote the production of useful arts, so if more of it is being produced why do we need more laws again since it is pretty clear that those incentives are enough to keep people producing?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 5:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The whole purpose of it, is to promote the production of useful arts, so if more of it is being produced..."
        
        ...it must be working!
        
        Sorry, I just find this argument hilarious, since people will make these poorly-founded arguments either way depending on what result they want to get to. More creativity than ever? Copyright is working and isn't holding us back! Yay copyright! More creativity than ever, piracy is great, those evil record labels are lying, and the music industry is healthy! Boo copyright!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 5:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, declare other people to be wrong and their position to be poorly founded, provide no evidence, arguments, or logic of your own, and expect people to take you seriously.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 5:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Where did I suggest I expect to be taken seriously?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 5:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Then why are you here? To troll?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Bingo.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 5:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So what is the purpose of copyright again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 5:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well if the purpose is to make more of something and more is being produced did they purpose for it not been achieved?
        
        What is funny is your inability to make a coherent statement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, it is working even without copyright, since piracy is a real problem according to some and that in fact reduces the effectiveness of copyright and people keep still producing more, one has to question the validity of the assumption that copyright is even necessary to incentivize the production of what is was created for, further looking at other markets one can see that were there is no effective copyrights people tend to produce more, markets emerge rapidly because people are able to use what is created to their own purposes without being burden by fees or prohibitions of use, which may not be so great for the copyright holder but it may point to the fact that markets grow where there is more freedom to act.
        
        Also we can look at other sectors to see if there is a problem with people copying anybody, are restaurants not being able to function in a market where anyone can copy others and make use of others intellectual properties freely?
        
        Of course not, we still get multi-nationals being born like McDonalds, Subway and others, we still get a lot of small restaurants appearing everywhere that cater to every section of society and not just one part of it.
        
        So really why do some people need "protections" and others don't?
        Do this people really need copyrights to produce and be able to survive inside a market?
        
        I don't believe artists need copyrights, they can have their own market now, the tools are here, anyone can now publish their own works and reach the entire world, you don't need expensive factories, or thousands of people to deliver things anymore, even if copied the market tends to favor the original creator if he is not an a-hole.
        
        So why is that "protection" is needed again?
        People keep still producing in the face of a reduction in the copyright strength, people keep making more money despite copyright loss of scope, now can anyone explain why it is really needed?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Que IP maximist to criticize this post that may have been written by an IP maximist in 3 ... 2 ... 1
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Taking a simplistic, myopic view of things means ignoring the micro and understanding how things are produced.
        
        Do you view all intellectual property the same way you view copyright?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You mean like taking the miopic view of the RIAA and the MPAA?
        
        I totally agree with that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because quantity doesn't equal quality. Especially in music.
        
        I don't know of any numbers that suggest more people are making music- I certainly hope that is the case- but it is generally accepted that the more time a musician has to devote to their art- writing, rehearsing and recording, the better the final result will be.
        
        And removing time and money from them means less time to write, rehearse and record.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 4:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Really?
        
        What were the best albums of all times for every single band or singer out there?
        
        The answer is probably the first ones when they didn't reach fame and glories, rare are the ones that came after fame and wrote things as good as that first ones, what we see is old stars taking 10 years hiatus to produce crap and capitalize on the old name.
        
        So I can't believe in what you are saying, since that is not true for me and I don't know anyone that find it true either but maybe you live in a different social group that find the new songs are always better than the oldies.
        
        I even have a theory for why that happens, when bands and singers get to the top they don't have to work as hard they don't have to prove anything and they lose contact with their core fan base and start making that self-awering philosophical BS, geeeezuz if I wanted something profound I would read real thinkers like Aristotle, Nietze, I just need to connect some noise to some moment in my life and have that as a trigger to brain endorfines how hard is that?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 11:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You do understand that this isn't a battle between the copyright maximalists and the pirates, right?
        
        It is possible to believe that copyright law as it exists right now is harmful to society and law-abiding individuals and is in desperate need of reform without believing that piracy is good and proper.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:20pm
    
    Re: Re:
    1. Layoffs you say, well how about those creepy people outsourcing the work to other places, God knows that even special effects are being done in Asia and not in the western parts of the globe.
    
    2. And somehow, this is not a problem in India, Nigeria, South Korea, China or even Brazil why?
    
    3. The above means jobs are being transferred to other areas of the globe, the world is adjusting to a new world order one in which Asia is becoming the economic center of it, just look at Europe asking help from China.
    
    Those are facts sure, but your conclusions of why they are occurring are just wrong.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Not denying what is happening in the world economy.
      
      But US politicians are worried about the US economy; they have to be if they want to keep their job.
      
      So don't be surprised that they are anxious to help these US businesses.
      
      Most of the world's entertainment comes from the US, and they want to protect that export.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They should just shut the Internet off. Problems solved.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Protecting it by making more dificult to be exposed to it?
        I could understand that if it was some new weapon that nobody should know about, but something that depends on exposure to create buzz to hopefully create a need for it and translate that into sales of products can't possibly benefit from such course of action.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Enforcement of copyright law will have no effect on the ability for someone to create buzz or exposure.
        
        The internet has brought numerous ways to discover, sample and be exposed to new work in a completely legal manner.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You mean labels won't be able to shutdown little artists by aham! mistakenly accusing them of infringement? and having financial institutions cutting out their financial lifeline?
        
        Every platform right now for the little people are at risk by legislation that is in congress right now and you say it is fine because they will able to use something that may not be there tomorrow?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry, but none of what you're talking about is going to happen. You're just baselessly fear mongering.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 4:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Even without the facilitation of those laws it is already happening how can you say it is not going to happen more with laws that make it easy to do it and ZERO! safeguards against such actions?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 11:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Right, because the entire history of the bug labels shows that they are honest and trustworthy and have never twisted laws or the courts in order to destroy their competition.
        
        It's not fear-mongering to point out that past behavior is a pretty good predictor of future behavior.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 7:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry, but none of what you're talking about is going to happen.
        
        Well I don't know about you guys, but I feel better already.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also there is another problem if it was not for piracy I would never had had contact with some Japanese cartoons, UK TV series or even Australian series.
        
        Heck to this day I can't find a place to buy Earth 2, and you are saying that it will be easier as it is today to find things?
        
        I doubt it, copyright is not what creates the market, people exchanging information about what they like or not is what creates market and you can't possibly believe that a bigger market can emerge from limiting it, to a handful of people who are not going to be able to serve everybody.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 7:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Like copyright law has no negative effects on the career of musicians that can't find a place to play?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws.org (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    1. The number of layoffs that have occurred the past decade at both major and indie labels and other industry associated companies.
    
    Which has nothing to do with the recession or the competition about people's attention by other media.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 11:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    This is not conjecture. They are objectively observable facts.
    
    But what is conjecture is the reason for this trend. Piracy may or may not be a significant factor, but it's certainly not the only one.
    
    For example, I haven't purchased a single piece of music from a mainstream label in over a decade, and I'm not going to start anytime soon. I stopped buying because I found the actions of the labels to be unconscionable and could not continue to help fund them.
    
    I've purchased very little music from any label whatsoever. However, over the past decade I've been purchasing an increasingly large amount of music -- I just do it directly from the artists themselves.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:30pm
  
  Re:
  WB is the perfect example, a company that is basically shrinking it's way into profitability, by cutting jobs and axing parts of their business.
  
  Even taking your statement at face value doesn't mean that it is right to do something about it.
  The recorded music industry has just seen the margin cost of their product drop to zero. This is a good thing. It means that there is no physical obstacle to us all having as much recorded music as we want for free. Inevitably it destroys the value of that part of the recording industry which was concerned with the production of physical copies. To complain about this is like complaining about the poor business environment for chimmney sweeps - now that most people have heating systems that don't create sooty chimneys.
  
  Furthermore the new copying mechanisms no longer have any economies of scale. Therefore there is no need to aggressively market a few acts in order to take advantage of those economies.
  
  So what you are complaining about is mostly the fact that technology has freed us from a lot of unnecessary toil!
  
  Strange!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Using your logic, the marginal cost dropped to zero back in the 60s when the cassette tape was invented.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Maybe using your logic, but most of us understand that physical cassettes are quite different to digital files.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Togashi (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well no, cassette tapes cost money to produce. Digital copies do not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - rubberpants, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Cassette tapes are also a lossy medium. Copies of copies eventually degrade until they become useless. Digital files are duplicated perfectly every time.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 8:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Richard, here's the rub:
    
    WB's products are more popular today than ever, but because of piracy, only a percentage of the consumers are paying for the product anymore.
    
    There is no such thing as zero marginal cost. It's bullshit end to end. As soon as someone has to be involved, as soon as you get it over a network, as soon as there is a server, and so on, there is a marginal cost. Even Itunes has marginal costs.
    
    "Furthermore the new copying mechanisms no longer have any economies of scale. Therefore there is no need to aggressively market a few acts in order to take advantage of those economies."
    
    The costs to find, to record, to produce, to market and to promote acts are still significant. Try putting a band on the road for a month out of your pocket and see. Heck, just call up the tour bus guys and try to rent a single private coach for a month. Put them up in hotels, pay their meals, equipment... and then remind me how things have become infinite and free. Once I stop laughing, I will try to answer you again.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The returns are also significant apparently even in Brazil in the middle of the jungle that is Amazon they can afford to do it and be profitable.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 11:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      WB's products are more popular today than ever, but because of piracy, only a percentage of the consumers are paying for the product anymore.
      
      What percentage of sales are lost to piracy? 1%, 5%, 99%? The answer to this question matters a great deal, and without that answer your statement here means nothing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 5 Nov 2011 @ 5:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      WB's products are more popular today than ever, but because of piracy, only a percentage of the consumers are paying for the product anymore.
      
      Only a percentage ever did - the rest listened to the radio, or in friends houses etc etc.
      
      If it genuinely was popular then people would want to pay. If they don't pay that just suggests it isn't really that popular.
      
      There is no such thing as zero marginal cost. It's bullshit end to end. As soon as someone has to be involved, as soon as you get it over a network, as soon as there is a server, and so on, there is a marginal cost. Even Itunes has marginal costs.
      
      You have zero marginal costs when your customer pays them for you.
      
      The costs to find, to record, to produce, to market and to promote acts are still significant.
      
      Your comment just demonstrates that you haven't a clue what the term "marginal cost" actually means.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 5:43pm
  
  Re:
  Quote:
  To draw a conclusion that the Music industry, example, is "Healthy" with sales off more than 50% in 5 years is pretty dishonest.
  
  I don't know if you are being ignorant or deceitful, but to take and incomplete table and claim that it represents the total of ways that some industry makes money is wrong or dishonest.
  
  In that Wikipedia table there is no mention of digital sales, B2B revenues, merch sales, theaters/shows sales, ancillary goods sales, how can you possibly say that sales are down 50%?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:42pm
  
  Re:
  The Wikipedia article you cite certainly does not include digital sales. iTunes alone sold over 8 billion songs from Jan 2005 to Sep 2009. (reference)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 3:15pm

If the copy'right' industry is so big maybe it's because it's been made artificially too big. and how can it be such a failure if it's so big? Isn't the point of free market capitalism to shrink the industry if its too big to the point where everyone makes a normal profit? Why should we artificially make an industry bigger than it ought to be?

If the industry is so big then how can it be dying? For it to be dying, there should be very few players in the industry. If it's so big and none of the players are doing that well, maybe it's because the industry's total revenue is being distributed among way too many players, so the industry as a whole is successful at generating a lot of revenue, but it's not generating a lot of revenue per industry person and entity. We should simply allow free market capitalism to correct this by shrinking the industry down to size and freeing up resources to provide the market with other things, instead of trying to artificially protect an industry's size.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 3:59pm

For example, I'm sure Techdirt technically qualifies under whatever measure they're using. After all, we're a publisher, so technically we're in "the content industries." Yet I can tell you right now that exactly zero percent of our revenue is due to copyright law. That's true of many, many of the companies included as being in "the copyright industries."

[evidence needed]

Else it's just faith-based FUD. Funny how you are blasting them for not having evidence, but you, of course, do the same thing.

That is, they use the size of the numbers to suggest that stronger copyright law is necessary. Yet that's ridiculous. They present no evidence that the industries would be any different size, if copyright law were weaker or stronger.

And you can't prove it's not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:04pm
  
  Re:
  And you can't prove it's not true.
  
  Haha okay. Well I say that their industry is the size it is because of pixie dust, Campbell's soup and the phase of the moon in Sagittarius. And you can't prove it's not true.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:07pm
  
  Re:
  The only people notoriously known for lying is the MAFIAA along with you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:33pm
  
  Re:
  And you can't prove it's not true.
  
  Occam's razor says we don't have to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 4:47pm
  
  Re:
  100% nobody can prove either way, but we can look at other markets like Bollywood and Nollywood and see what happens there. There are no copyrights and they grow, for them everything is rosy.
  
  The problem in western markets may be that it is already mature there is no where to go but down.
  
  Even in Brazil with the travelling raves that don't make use of copyright and in fact depend on other infringing their copyrights so they can attract people to their shows.
  
  So I say that is a pretty good chance that the market today in the old economic world is shrinking not because of piracy but because of changes in consumer trends, people are not buying albums anymore they buy singles that are cheaper, people don't want to buy a bluray because to do so implies you need to have an internet connection at all times or else you won't be able to play the newly released DRM discs, but people still spend the same amount of money on entertainment so claiming that some part is shrinking and that is reason enough to give more power to people known to be dishonest is just silly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    " we can look at other markets like Bollywood and Nollywood and see what happens there"
    
    Emerging markets are very different in nature for mature market places. India in particular is seeing dramatic increases in personal income in many areas, and that changes consumption patterns. Stating that copyright helps or hurts in a place like this is very hard to determine. Are they seeing an increase in sales high enough to make the piracy issue appear not to be too serious?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Fine, are restaurants in dire straights because everybody can copy their recipes?
      
      Are automakers in dire straights because cab drivers don't pay them royalties or affiliate fees?
      
      Did musicians have not one of the best decades ever with live gigs?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So we have that in other markets no one that has "protections" are facing any real problems, but somehow musicians are different from everybody else?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rubberpants, 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:01pm
  
  Re:
  I'm a llama. I'm not kidding. You can't prove it's not true.
  
  YOU CAN'T!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:28pm
    
    Re: Re: yes I can
    Show me a llama that can type and read / write english.
    
    I can prove you are not a llama because llama's do not type or read Techdirt.
    
    If you can find a llama that can do that you can prove me wrong.
    
    But unless you can do that You cannot prove it is not true.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
darryl, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:01pm

Yet I can tell you right now that exactly zero percent of our revenue is due to copyright law.
Yet I can tell you right now that exactly zero percent of our revenue is due to copyright law.

BULLSHIT !!!!! outright LIE !!!

you are paid revenue because google places adds on your web site, those adds are COPYRIGHT. You make ALL your freaking revenue from copyright.

All you do not do is sell the RIGHTS to COPY YOUR CONTENT, instead you take those rights for yourself, you own the copyright of your work, it's only value is to you because you get people here reading your content and you have not assigned any group to manage your COPYRIGHT's.

Is "floor 64" a registered business ?

so its registered business name, you OWN THE COPYRIGHT to floor 64. You PROFIT FROM THAT COPYRIGHT..

Masnick ALL YOUR FREAKING PROFIT COMES FROM COPYRIGHT, copyright that you OWN, and is OF VALUE TO YOU !!!!..

Masnick....You're a joke...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:27pm
  
  Re: Yet I can tell you right now that exactly zero percent of our revenue is due to copyright law.
  "you are paid revenue because google places adds on your web site, those adds are COPYRIGHT."
  
  because without copyright, no one would advertise!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rubberpants, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:40pm
  
  Re: Yet I can tell you right now that exactly zero percent of our revenue is due to copyright law.
  This post is littered with incorrectness.
  
  Yet I can tell you right now that exactly zero percent of our revenue is due to copyright law.
  
  BULLSHIT !!!!! outright LIE !!!
  
  Great way to start. I'm sure you're going to win some hearts and minds there.
  
  you are paid revenue because google places adds on your web site, those adds are COPYRIGHT. You make ALL your freaking revenue from copyright.
  
  1. What percentage of what Mike makes comes from ad placements? Oh, that's right, you have no idea. How can you make this statement in light of the information you simply don't have?
  
  2. Advertisements have little to nothing to do with copyright. In fact, if someone was to copy an advertisement and distribute it, the originator couldn't be more pleased.
  
  3. Mike has already declared many times that he doesn't care what's done with the content on this site, so it can't be that you're referring to, can it?
  
  All you do not do is sell the RIGHTS to COPY YOUR CONTENT, instead you take those rights for yourself, you own the copyright of your work, it's only value is to you because you get people here reading your content and you have not assigned any group to manage your COPYRIGHT's.
  
  You're right here, but that completely contratdicts your earlier assertion that Mike's revenue comes from copyright. How could that be the case if he's not asserting those rights?
  
  Is "floor 64" a registered business ?
  
  so its registered business name, you OWN THE COPYRIGHT to floor 64. You PROFIT FROM THAT COPYRIGHT..
  
  This is totally wrong. If floor 64 is registered, it's a trademark, not a copyright. Trademarks grant specific rights different from and more limited that copyrights.
  
  Masnick ALL YOUR FREAKING PROFIT COMES FROM COPYRIGHT, copyright that you OWN, and is OF VALUE TO YOU !!!!..
  
  Masnick....You're a joke...
  
  Maybe you should look into Xanex. It's been helpful to a lot of people.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - darryl, 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:10pm
    
    Re: Re: Yet I can tell you right now that exactly zero percent of our revenue is due to copyright law.
    1. What percentage of what Mike makes comes from ad placements? Oh, that's right, you have no idea. How can you make this statement in light of the information you simply don't have?
    
    Oh right I dont have any idea !!!, I know it is:
    
    GREATER THEN ZERO
    Less than ALOT
    Enough for him to continue his operations
    
    So yes, I CAN MAKE THAT FREAKING Statement.
    
    Just because YOU DONT KNOW SOMETHING, does not mean everyone else does not know it.
    
    How could that be the case if he's not asserting those rights?
    
    But he is asserting his rights, he has registered his business, therefore he has a copyright on that.
    
    He has an implicit copyrite on his works, the fact he chooses not to exercise that right does not mean he does not that that right in the first place.
    
    I have the right to drive a car, I dont have to exercise my right, it is a right, not a duty.
    
    So Masnick has every RIGHT to not enforce his rights, but that does not mean he does not have said rights.
    
    This is totally wrong. If floor 64 is registered, it's a trademark, not a copyright. Trademarks grant specific rights different from and more limited that copyrights.
    
    You shoot yourself down here, regeristering a trademark is taking out COPYRIGHT on that name.
    
    It is protection right under copyright law, if not then what the hell is it ??? (in your 'opinion')
    
    So if "floor 64" is a registered business, it is afforded full legal protection under COPYRIGHT LAW, therefore as Mike ownes the copyright of "floor 64" then all the profit that "floor 64" makes, is based on the FACT that his business (and its name) is protected under copyright law.
    
    Unless you are brain dead, and/or have no concept of law or economics..... something something.... coolaid.....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - RadialSkid (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 10:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Yet I can tell you right now that exactly zero percent of our revenue is due to copyright law.
      You shoot yourself down here, regeristering a trademark is taking out COPYRIGHT on that name.
      
      No.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet I can tell you right now that exactly zero percent of our revenue is due to copyright law.
        I suppose you are sort of right, it is more like a PATENT than copyright..
        
        and Mike is good with patents and dealing with the USPTO ??
        
        Do you know what the T stands for ?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 10:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Yet I can tell you right now that exactly zero percent of our revenue is due to copyright law.
      Ah, Darryl. Will your hilarity never cease? Because you hold a copyright does not mean you gain your income by exercising those rights. To do so would be to sell the content that is copywritten. That is not what is sold, here. Of course you just want to yell 'NUH UH!' as loud as you can. Take some prozac and a nap.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet I can tell you right now that exactly zero percent of our revenue is due to copyright law.
        when you buy a news paper the people who write the articles you read do not sell the copyright for their articles.
        
        They sell the Articles themselves, people buy the newpaper to read the articles, and therefore the people who write the articles profit from their work.
        
        They do not sell the copyright, they sell the COPY, but not the right.
        
        and you buy the COPY and understand that is what you have purchased, not the COPYRIGHT for it, but the right to read and enjoy the content..
        
        Mike writes the articles, he retains the copyright, and sells the COPY.
        
        Mike makes his money from copyright, he has a right to create content, and he uses that content to make profit (money).
        
        He does not exercise his copyright ONLY to the point that he does not SELL the copyright to his works. (he does not even care if it is copied).
        
        But that does not mean he is not profiting from copyright, and HIS right to copy his content.
        
        After all, we are all seeing COPIES of Mikes work, even if Mike says that we are allowed to take his content, that is only because he has stated he will not enforce his COPYRIGHT.
        
        Not enforcing his copyright to his content, is NOT THE SAME as 'giving up or not having that right'.
        
        My Mike stating that "you can use my content, I wont prosecute".
        
        If EXACTLY THE SAME AS:
        
        "I assign the copyright of my works to any person who so wishes to exercise that right".
        
        Mike is ENFORCING COPYRIGHT LAW.
        
        Therefore Mike's business model is based on COPYRIGHT, his profits are derived from COPYRIGHT, and TRADEMARKS and PATENTS....
        
        There are laws and I have the RIGHT not to give you money if you demand it (you try to steal off me).
        
        But I also have the right to GIVE YOU MONEY, if I choose to do so.
        
        there is NO difference, it is MY CHOICE and MY RIGHTS.
        
        I have a right to my property, and I have a right to do what I want with my property.
        
        Mike has a COPYRIGHT to his property (content) he also have a right to NOT exercise that right, and just as you are or I am we have the right to give someone money if we choose too.
        
        You have a right to your stuff, I have a right to my stuff, but that does not mean that I do not have a right to let you have some of my stuff.
        
        But I do not have the right to TAKE your stuff, and you do not have a right to TAKE MY stuff..
        
        But you and me both have a right to ALLOW you the RIGHTS to my stuff.
        
        And I dont need any copyright laws or patents to allow me to do that.
        
        What Mike is trying to state is that "as I give my rights away, everyone should give their rights away too"
        
        Masnick has never 'given up his rights' to copyright, and never sold copyright for his work.
        
        He does not need too, he profits DIRECTLY from retaining the copyright himself..
        
        Ofcouse he says that anyone can copy his content, but that is his right under the law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 10:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Yet I can tell you right now that exactly zero percent of our revenue is due to copyright law.
      Oh, yes. I missed something, didn't I? Trademark is listed under the Lanham Act (15USC chapter 22), while copyright is listed under 17USC, so no, in fact, trademark is NOT protected by copyright law. They are separate and distinct.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - darryl, 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet I can tell you right now that exactly zero percent of our revenue is due to copyright law.
        so what your saying is a Trademark is closer to a PATENT than it is to copyright !!!.
        
        good one.. thanks for that !!!
        
        We ALL know what Mike things about patents, did mike make application to the
        
        USPTO to register his trademark ??
        
        United States PATENT and TRADEMARK OFFICE..
        
        Go figure.. a moron AC...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
McCrea (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:10pm

The Other Agenda
That MusicUnlimited advertisement is horrid! For moving my mouse I am rewarded with a black loading screen for 5 seconds! In my world 5 seconds is a long time. Not even a visible way to cancel it after 2 seconds.

The ad works, obviously I'll remember the MusicUnlimited name for at least a short while, but the opportunity to accidentally rollover a time-waster is an adventure I'd rather not take. That's certainly negative reinforcement for visiting a Techdirt page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
joe, 3 Nov 2011 @ 6:55pm

Strip club being sued for not paying royalites for playing 4 songs!
Peabody, MA- The owner of The Golden Banana isn�t singing the blues after the Peabody strip club was slapped with a lawsuit that alleges the pole palace failed to pay royalties on the tunes that play while the dancers bump and grind.

�We pay our ASCAP and BMI dues, and we�ve been doing so for 17 years,� Banana boss Peter DePesa told the Track. �I just found out about this, and I know nothing about it.�

A consortium of music companies filed suit against DePesa and his partners, brother Robert DePesa and Mark Filtranti, earlier this week, claiming copyright infringement because the strip club allegedly did not pay licensing fees for the tunes they spun, including Robin�s �Show Me Love,� Fuel�s �Shimmer,� B Stevie�s �Spring Love� and Company B�s �Fascinated.�

http://www.bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/view/2011_1103banana_big_we_didnt_ slip_up_on_music_co_dues/srvc=home&position=2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
darryl, 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:54pm

Masnick lets play "what if" we know you like that game
What if Mike the following happened.

You check your techdirt web site and you find you only have had ONE page hit, the next day you check again, and there is ONE MORE page hit.

You are still posting your 'stories' but now you are making no google money and getting no page hits, (and selling NO products).

You set out to find out what has happened !!.

You find a web site called "Techdert" and you find it is that web page this is the ONE visitor you get per day.

The web page Techdert, ONLY HAS YOUR CONTENT, or readers comments.

The auther is still you, but techdert has copy/pasted your page, improved it, and are making lots of money from your content.

Techdert gets REALLY BIG, they start to make thousands of dallars a day.

Mike, are you going to continue writing your stories and posting them here, to get ONE page hit, from "techdert" that is only to copy your stuff and make lots of money for it.

You're ok with that ??

Could you afford to maintain your website with only one page hit per day ?

See how hypcritical you are Masnick, most hypocrits dont.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 1:02am
  
  Re: Masnick lets play "what if" we know you like that game
  Oh for fuck sake, I saw this exact same comment the other day and replied with
  YES, Mike WANTS you to take his content! Go right ahead! If you're able to take his content and somehow figure out a way to monetize it better than he can, he'll be the first to applaud you.
  Only one problem...your potential audience, us techdirt regulars, wouldn't want to go to Techdert, because we want the site that originally had these stories to profit. Copyright, trademark, whatever laws, don't come into play here, its the market speaking, and they will want the original author to profit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - darryl, 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:38pm
    
    Re: Re: Masnick lets play "what if" we know you like that game
    YES, Mike WANTS you to take his content!
    
    NO, idiot Mike wants you to GET HIS CONTENT OFF THIS SITE..
    
    You cannot "take his content" you do not have that right, he want you to come to techdirt, and read is posts.
    
    That is what he WANTS...
    
    we All KNOW THAT IS WHAT MIKE SAYS forfucksake....
    
    what I am saying is what would happen IF it actually HAPPENED, and the way I have explained it.
    
    So your saying or trying to tell me, that Mike would be able to continue running "techdirt" with ONLY ONE HIT PER DAY..
    
    WHAT IF what Mike says he wants ACTUALLY HAPPEND, and
    WHAT IF he only got ONE page hit per day..
    
    IF that was the case (and we all know it IS NOT) but what IF
    
    IF that was the case, would Masnick still be able to create the amount of content that he does not, or be able to afford to run the site.
    
    Ofcourse If Mike was not able to make money from this site, he would not be able to keep this site going.
    
    If Mike can not afford to keep this site going, how is Mike going to make his content available ?
    
    Mike uses the profit from this site to fund his continuing work.
    
    He is upholding his property rights and making money from that Right.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Brendan (profile), 6 Nov 2011 @ 7:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Masnick lets play "what if" we know you like that game
      If that happened, Mike would look at the other site and try to figure out why it was getting the traffic instead of him. Then he would make Techdirt better than the other site. Then ithe other site would lose its traffic, and Techdirt wins because it has improved.
      
      Nice try though, assuming Mike would flip out and cry like so many other seem to believe is their only option.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2011 @ 4:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick lets play "what if" we know you like that game
        so mike is always able to make it "better" "somehow".
        
        why has he allready NOT done that ?
        
        Does Mike need competition to perform ?
        
        Are you saying Mike could do better, but 'just does not want too" ???
        
        How do you know Mike would be capable of 'doing better' than EVERYONE or ANYONE ELSE on the planet..
        
        What happens if he cant "do better" ??? does Mike then Cry about his copyright ?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Brendan (profile), 6 Nov 2011 @ 7:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick lets play "what if" we know you like that game
        Mike is not actively leaving anything out, its just that the copycat may point out some new feature. Mike could implement that.
        
        Yes, he can always do better if someone else is currently beating him with his own content. At the /very/ least, he could exactly duplicate the copycat site, but have the inherent advantage of being the original source.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2011 @ 8:09pm
    
    Re: Re: Masnick lets play "what if" we know you like that game
    I recognize this "darryl" -- he has been around for years (using the same name), repeating the same points over and over about copyright infringement=theft/piracy (and IIRC similar nonsense about related matters). Actually, I haven't seen him for a while -- perhaps he migrates from time to time to fresh pastures?
    
    He hasn't changed his line; he hasn't learned anything; he hasn't even refined his arguments or dealt with any of the clearly and repeatedly identified factual errors in his positions.
    
    In short -- you're wasting your time (unless perhaps you are actually addressing the general audience, rather than darryl himself).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 11:00am
  
  Re: Masnick lets play "what if" we know you like that game
  Except... there are sites out there that just scrape Techdirt and repost the content. Guess what happened? Nothing! They don't get visitors because people that come here know where the material came from. People that go there generally find where it came from rather quickly. He did post about just this not so terribly long ago. Troll harder, my angry friend. You can do it!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:26pm
    
    Re: Re: Masnick lets play "what if" we know you like that game
    That's what I WAS SAYING !! im not playing "WHAT IS".
    
    it's WHAT IF..
    
    WHAT IF WHAT I SAID HAPPEND.
    
    not what IS happening,
    
    Dullards..
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
techflaws.org (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:25am

You're ok with that ??

As he's said repeatedly, again just yesterday or the day before that. Of course you moron won't notice cause your busy posting your rants that noone takes seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]