What Happens When You Get Two Internet Haters Together? An Interview That Kills Brain Cells
from the you-said-what-now? dept
I've recently (separately) questioned some dubious claims by neo-luddites Rob Levine and Scott Timberg, so when the two of them get together to have a conversation, I have to admit that it almost made my head explode in seeing almost every sentence be chock full of "wrong." Let's dive in to some of it:The premise of my book is that most online companies rely for their content, and hence for their money, on traditional media companies. If they destroy that business model, it’s unclear what they’re going to have to distribute.Yes, because no one else ever shows up to fill that gap. Does Levine have no idea how culture responds to demand? Besides, this is just another line like Valenti's old "Boston Strangler" line. People who don't know or understand culture or history always blame the new technology for "killing" off the old industry. The reality -- as shown time and time again -- is that it actually enhances and grows that industry. You see it again and again. The sheet music industry insisted the player piano would kill the music business. John Philip Sousa insisted that the phonograph would kill the music industry, because with it, no one would ever learn to play music or want to hear live music again. The publishing industry insisted that the photocopier would be the end of its business model.
Levine follows in a long line of people who got it wrong. People who don't understand technology or culture or trends. When technology makes things more efficient you get more of it, not less. It may change business models, but in the end it always creates greater output, greater value. Timberg, of course, doesn't challenge Levine on this bizarre assertion, but remember, Timberg is the guy who claimed our creative class is gone because no one works at record stores any more.
If you look at YouTube, eight of the top 10 videos are major-label music videos. If the major labels shrank to the point where they can’t make videos, YouTube isn’t much of a business.Does Rob not know how much money YouTube is making for the smart acts that use it correctly? Ask the band OK GO where they'd be without YouTube. Ask the Gregory Brothers. For content creators that know how to use the platform (not Levine, apparently), it's a huge boost to their business. And, if the major labels shrank to the point where they can't make videos, (1) others would still make music videos and (2) YouTube is still a huge business. Levine offers no proof that without Universal Music making videos YouTube stops making money. That's because he can't. It's a blatantly ridiculous assertion.
technology creates uncertainty and regulation solves uncertainty.I'll just leave that one hanging for people to laugh about. I'm wondering which world Levine lives in where regulation solves uncertainty.
When the car was [created], no one knew how fast you were allowed to drive. We came up with speed limits and that solved some of the uncertainty – didn’t solve it perfectly, but it made the roads safer.Actually, it didn't. As multiple studies have shown over the years, speed limits have had almost no impact on road safety. Well, that's not entirely true. One report says that the implementation of speed limits appears to decrease road safety. And that's because speed limits were never actually put in place for road safety, but for state revenue generation. How can anyone trust Levine when he claims things to be facts that the data shows just isn't true?
Then [Congress] came up with the DMCA, which I think was sort of the original sin. The idea was we have to say something before you want to take something that infringes on copyright down.... The important provision was notice and takedown. You have safe harbor from copyright liability if you follow this notice and takedown procedure. It turns 300 years of copyright law on its head by making it an opt-out system instead of an opt-in system.Someone doesn't know the history of copyright law at all. The notice and takedown provision certainly has many problems, but the idea that you properly apply liability to those who actually do the infringement is sorta common sense. The problem is that Levine is confused. He seems to think that a site is the content creator or publisher, rather than the tool. We never blamed the physical printing press for the infringement that was done on them. So why does Levine want to blame the tool now? That would be turning copyright law on its head.
And, if he's honestly talking about what turned copyright law on its head by making an opt-in system into an opt-out system, he must actually be talking about the 1976 Copyright Act, which put all new creative works under copyright at the moment they were fixed, rather than requiring you to register and follow certain formalities. That was about turning copyright on its head. Using the DMCA to clarify that you don't blame the tool for the user's actions? That's just common sense to keep the clueless in line.
Dozens of sites will use this interview until you specifically tell them not to.Including mine. And in this case, it's called fair use. But Levine prefers permission culture. And that should be scary to anyone who understands how culture works. You don't want artists asking for permission. You want them to create.
One of the desirable things that copyright laws do is create some kind of market for intellectual propertyThis is economically wrong. While it's true that copyright law creates a market for copyright, there's no economic evidence that that, in itself, is desirable. If you have something that is infinitely reproducible, such as ideas, to put artificial limitations on them is economically inefficient and limits growth. It's the opposite of a "desirable thing." There's this problem with people who know just enough economics to be dangerous, where they learn that "free markets" are a good thing, and they seem to think that means all markets are good things. But artificially created markets are, by their very definition, inefficient. The value brought about by markets is in their efficiency.
A simple example. We could, if we so chose, create a "market" for air. You and I breathe freely (in monetary terms), but based on Levine's reasoning, we'd be better if we charged. After all, it would create a market for air. That would make some people rich, but it would make most people poor (and potentially kill a bunch too, but that's besides the point). Putting in place an artificial barrier to create a market where none is needed is not "desirable," it's the very definition of economic waste and inefficiency.
Google News is not as useful if there’s not as much news to Google. I mean, Google is an information search tool, right? It’s not a moral issue. But the problem you’ve created, you create a very powerful incentive for somebody to create a better search engine. You eliminate [the] incentive to create better journalism. That is a problem.As far as I can tell, the number of sources within Google News appears to keep going up. And, frankly, I'm seeing better and better journalism. Even Salon, which has published this Timberg/Levine disaster, often has good journalism (just not in this particular piece). So, um, where's the evidence that journalism is somehow getting worse. I just don't see it.
The middleman hasn’t been eliminated. There’s a new middleman. YouTube is the new middleman. YouTube, just now, was giving professional content creators advances against future royalties. Is it a good middleman? I don’t know. YouTube has a lot of good technology. They obviously have other advantages. It could be a smart deal. It depends on the advance; it depends on what you want. But I would say that the idea that YouTube is fundamentally different from a record company is silly. YouTube probably has a higher percentage of the market for online video than all four major labels combined have of recorded music. Who’s stopping their market power? No one, and everyone is saying it’s a progressive thing.Wow. Levine was an executive editor for Billboard. He must be familiar with record label deals. To claim that YouTube is the same sort of middleman as a record label pretty much destroys any and all credibility he might have. And, as we've pointed out many, many times, the whole idea that middlemen go away is a myth. It makes for a nice strawman from Timberg, but it's always been a myth. What go away are gatekeepers. There's still obviously a massive role for middlemen who enable artists, but that's different from gatekeepers who give back very little to artists.
A record label deal involves giving up all of your copyrights, entirely. It involves one of the worst deals you'll ever see, in terms of getting a tiny percentage of royalties, and every expense that the label spends on your behalf first has to be "recouped" out of just your (tiny) portion of the revenue. Basically, the labels give you a loan with ridiculously bad terms... and then get to keep the collateral no matter what. When YouTube starts offering deals as ridiculous as that, let me know. Because as far as I can tell, it seems to be enabling careers of all sorts of new artists who are making tons of money off of YouTube (or because of YouTube) without having to give up any control or all future profits.
What you rarely hear is that the French tradition – and this applies, to varying degrees, to a lot of other countries in Europe – copyright is a fundamental right. It is your work and you have a fundamental right to it. What’s interesting is you have a lot of people talking about the right to remix. In Europe, not only is there very little legal support for a right to remix, there’s a decent amount of support for a right not to be remixed. You have a right to the paternity and the integrity of your work. It’s a moral right. So someone says, “I want to remix Rob Levine’s book so that every 10 words it’s going to say: Rob Levine eats stinky poo” – by the way, I’m fairly certain that somebody would call this an art project – I can say, “No. I have a right to my work.” I think a lot of people would find that very reasonable.I really do wonder why that's "very reasonable." If someone were to write that remix of Levine's book... who would care? Would it impact Levine's actual book? Would the creation of such a work somehow make Levine's actual book disappear and the only way you could read his book is with the words "Rob Levine eats stinky poo"? Of course not. No one would care, because putting such things in his book is a stupid idea that no one in the market would care about. Now, if someone actually does create something that the market cares about, in the form of a remix (for example, someone like Girl Talk or Kutiman), then the world is actually better off. It takes nothing away from the original and people get an amazing new work. How is that a bad thing? It seems like a very good thing.
When Google says newspapers should be free on the Internet, they may really believe that, but you also have to keep in mind that it’s a huge help to them. Right?I'm curious where Google has ever said that newspapers "should be free on the Internet," as Levine claims here. I distinctly recall Google actually building its own tools to help with paywalls. So I'm at a total loss as to why Levine would claim this. Furthermore, Levine seems to not understand the nature of non-zero sum markets. If something benefits Google (or any other third party) that doesn't mean it can't also benefit the content creator.
This is a common logical fallacy among folks who don't understand new business models and new platforms. They seem to think that these markets are zero-sum games. Thus, when iTunes starts doing well, the record labels freak out that it's making too much money (as if some of the money Apple made for dragging them into the digital era belongs to them). It's why you now see Hollywood trying to cripple Netflix, and the TV guys trying to kill Hulu (even though they own it). They're treating these all as zero sum games. They see Apple, Netflix and Hulu making money and they say "that's not fair, that's money that's being taken away from us." What they don't see is that these systems are doing no such thing. They're expanding the market, making things more efficient, and moving away from old inefficiencies. And, yes, they put in place smart business models so that they get a cut of that, but that doesn't mean they're not also incredibly useful to content creators.
The interview goes on and on from there... in a similar vein. At this point, my brain is so full of wrong ideas from the two of them that I'm giving up. This is pretty disappointing from Salon, which I thought would like to publish things that were, you know, based in fact.
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: culture, economics, free rider, internet, regulations, rob levine, scott timberg
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Traditional Media Not Needed for Internet
This statement is even more ridiculous than you make it out.
Of the sites I visit on a daily basis, most provide services. DragonGoServer lets me play go with people across the world. Facebook, Gmail, my bank's website, Google+, StackOverflow, Ask.SqlServerCentral.com are all providing services rather than content in the traditional sense.
Many of the other sites I visit often like ArsTechnica.com and Simple-Talk.com are either creating or comissionin their own content quite independently of traditional media companies.
Perhaps I am unusual, but if traditional media companies all vanished *most* of my internet usage would be entirely unaffected.
Of the sites I use that do rely on traditional media (Amazon.com, Pandora, and Netflix) they all add enormous value to that media. I buy more music now than ever before, and find more music that is actually good, and it is entirely because of Pandora.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Traditional Media Not Needed for Internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Traditional Media Not Needed for Internet
Fancy a game?
I'm rcc
Also - have you tried http://www.online-go.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This ones awesome! I am so making T-shirts with this and a policeman beating a guy with a questionmark on his shirt to a bloody pulp!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet has been running off accumulation of a century.
So I'd agree that the internet is killing the "content industry". If makes your skull either implode or explode, Mike, that's just a pleasant side effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Internet has been running off accumulation of a century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Internet has been running off accumulation of a century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Internet has been running off accumulation of a century.
Honestly though I think the reality is the LCD industry isn't going anywhere, it's never going anywhere and will always be a profit maker. As when it was claimed many times before the LCD dying is just a myth because it's not a zero-sum game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Internet has been running off accumulation of a century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Internet has been running off accumulation of a century.
I'd agree... to a point.
But, the internet also allows exposure to new content that's anything but formulaic. If I'm online, I can access the new Autechre EP as easily as I access Gaga, can access the new Takashi Miike film or Human Centipede 2 as easily as I can access Twilight and access some crazy crap you've never heard of in the same way.
So, overall I'd disagree. The mainstream is as it has always been - bland, trite, pointless. But, it's far easier to access the interesting things nowadays, and I'd say that more people are interested in non-mainstream material as a result. That's not a negative thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Internet has been running off accumulation of a century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Find the number for a good therapist
For example: A man worries his girlfriend is going to leave him. He begins to interpret more and more of her actions as evidence that she is going to leave him. He becomes angry and so distances himself from her and stops investing in their relationship. She becomes dissatisfied because of that distance and begins thinking about leaving him. Repeat, until she does indeed leave.
Now, why did his relationship fail? Was it because of his girlfriend's actions? No, it was his incorrect and mistaken thoughts and the actions he took based on those that turned them into a self-fulfilling expectation. He will probably never realize this and will always believe he was right about her wanting to leave him.
In the same way, the industry believes any let-up or lose of control of distribution will lead to an orgy of piracy by their customers that will eventually leave them with nothing. So, they do everything they can to stop it: suing their customers, locking-down technologies, getting laws passed, overvaluing their content, etc. They make things so inconvenient and so unattractive to their customers that their customers become dissatisfied and increasingly turn to piracy. The industry sees piracy happening and interprets it as confirmation of their already held conceptions. Repeat, until the industry is indeed left with nothing.
Now, why did the industries' business fail? Was it because of piracy? No, it was their fear and stubbornness and the actions they took based on those that turned them into a self-fulfilling expectation. They will never realize this and will always believe they were right about those dirty pirates destroying their business.
This vicious cycle can be broken, but it takes a willingness to closely examine oneself, a desire to change, and the humility to ask for help.
We're trying to help them here. But, they don't yet believe they need it and so suggestions of how to make money in the new digital landscape are met with ridicule, derision, and anger.
In fact, right now, someone from the industry is reading this and thinking, "oh sure, I'll just give away my stuff - that will work! or analog dollars to digital dimes - great plan!"
See what I mean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Find the number for a good therapist
The solution for the industry is the same. Rather than vilify, punish, and exploit their customers and potential customers, establish relationships with them, find out what it is they want and what's important to them, then try to meet those needs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Find the number for a good therapist
Once he no longer has his girlfriend he will become depressed, angry and self pitying.
He will begin to find solace at the bottom of the bottle in a dingy titty bar with a bunch of other like minded blokes who, between them, come to the realisation that the only way out of the situation is to band together and head out to convince all the mothers of the ex-girlfriends/wives that their daughters MUST take them back.
Years later after having birthdays remembered, receiving flowers and generally being treated like queens by the ex's the mothers begin to take heed and start admonishing their daughters for the past few years of depravity they have had since their breakups. The daughters will be convinced to get back with their ex's and the men will once again feel in control of their lives. No longer feeling like the world has passed them by they will get married and move to the suburbs, buy a nice picket fenced cottage and relax back into their comfortable old ways.
Soon realising that their life is in fact rather drab they will begin to wonder if their wife is happy in this suburban banality. They will worry that she might leave for a more exciting life in the city. They will become detached and come to view her actions as signs that she is about to leave.......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Find the number for a good therapist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Find the number for a good therapist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Find the number for a good therapist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Find the number for a good therapist
I find myself looking for open culture, something I never thought I would be doing, because I thought those musicians that sang all those songs about how the system sucked were sincere and now I don't think they are.
The sold outs now are angry that people are in charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Find the number for a good therapist
LOL. Rubberpants and friends to the rescue.
All you're doing is bitching, moaning, and providing useless long-winded analogies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
almost there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: almost there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How long would it take TechDirt to come after me for copywrite infringment? How long would it take before Mike got tired of not only being the butt of jokes, but also of having his words used for someone else to gain profit?
What would happen if my theoretical site, which would be based solely on TechDirt's content became more popular than TechDirt itself? How frustrated would TechDirt be that is was providing the content that generated all the profit for someone else?
It would be legal, it would be entertaining, but it would be immoral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As your business model begins to fail, you would lose advertising support, which would mean you would lay off staff. This would negatively affect my business because the amount of content would decrease but honestly how much work is really involved in COPYING anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Geez this thing might actually work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dude, AC, this has been talked about repeatedly, and every time Mike says he's just fine, go ahead, do it. You aren't doing any sort of 'gotcha', you aren't being clever, it's just sad at this point.
Do it, because nobody cares
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Geez this thing might actually work. AC eats stinky poo
You might be on to something here, this is fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What if the record industry suddenly ceased to exist, what if Hollyweird suddenly drowned in its own shit. What if lawyers suddenly choked on there own bullshit arguments.. Ah, what if :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When the two intersect ridiculous, hilarious, and/or infuriating things happen. Techdirt finds and discusses those events.
Right now, the loudest idiots are the moguls operating out of SoCal and so they receive a lot of attention. However, even should they suddenly disappear, Techdirt would still have plenty to talk about.
I could whip up a quick Venn diagram if it would help, but those usually require absolute values to display properly, and as I mentioned, the value of 'Idiots' is infinite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, if you were actually funny about it I would wager he would link to you frequently, he tends to encourage parody and doesn't seem to mind good natured mocking. I would certainly read both sites, as long as it were actually funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That being said, it would not be immoral. I can see no reason why that would be immoral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I totally don't see how this would be immoral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Reputation is a scarce good. Digital content is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As for this Techdirt-satire-clone becoming more popular than the original...I highly doubt that would happen. From your tone, any satire you would write would be in the form of an attack against him. While there are people who dislike Mike and would thus view your content, there are a lot more people who like him. The majority here would then see the spirit within your satires, get tired of them and stop viewing them.
As for how would Mike feel about using his content to generate greater revenue? If that happens, then unless I'm mistaken, I can only see him applauding you. You would have been the one to "innovate" and use the content to a better advantage. It would keep in spirit with his message of innovation: live artists complained that their content, now being used by a player piano, was unfair, because its their content that's generating the income. The analogy here, unless I'm wrong, fits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He seems like the type of guy who isn't afraid to laugh at himself, unlike the folks making up the legacy content industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're new here?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090116/0348223430.shtml
How long would it take TechDirt to come after me for copywrite infringment?
It would take forever, because we wouldn't do it. And it's copyright. Not copywrite.
How long would it take before Mike got tired of not only being the butt of jokes, but also of having his words used for someone else to gain profit?
I have no problem with being the butt of jokes or of having someone else profit off my words. Happens all the time, and none of that impacts my ability to profit directly. In fact, it usually helps me. For example, there's one company that has taken one of my presentations and uses it in their own sales pitch. That's been great for that company, which has signed up a ton of clients... but it's also acted as free advertising for me, helping me profit as well.
What would happen if my theoretical site, which would be based solely on TechDirt's content became more popular than TechDirt itself? How frustrated would TechDirt be that is was providing the content that generated all the profit for someone else?
Not frustrated at all. We might explore why your site became so popular, and see what we could do to improve our own site. So, for that we'd thank you for the free market research.
It would be legal, it would be entertaining, but it would be immoral.
How would it be immoral?!?
Anyway, if you do it, just let us know. Thanks for wanting to promote us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't care what other do, I never did really, as long as I can do my own thing why should I care how much other get?
It is not my problem, if they guy can crush me using my own content at some point he will need to make his own or go under, At which point he may come to me for more if he can't do it on his own.
But here is the funny part, nature has a way of correcting itself naturally, you can copy, but as you said most people don't like others that don't give back at least the due credit, which eventually comes out and the guy gets ruined, it should be a social decision to enforce that BS because it is extreme, it should never be the job of a government to tell what is right or wrong except for things that we all can agree with a super majority consensus on the issues and even then things can change with time.
In the 80's I didn't care about copyrights and I don't to this day and probably will die not caring about or respecting it, but I feel sad for younger generations that will need to put up with all this crap they are the sheep that will be enslaved and have to fight back bloody battles to regain what is being lost today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait, don't you do all that already? On here nonetheless? So what would be the difference? Oh, it'd be YOUR own site. I see. So basically the same thing, now I present a question to you...
If you did make your own site, to just mock TD, does that mean we would NEVER see you comment here again?
If so, please consider doing so. By all means.
Sincerely,
Acrimonious Howard ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike has stated repeatedly that he's OK with sites copying the content of this site wholesale. What makes you think that he'd object to such a clear-cut case of fair use as satire?
I would just hope that you allowed critical comments as readily as Mike accepts you people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike has stated repeatedly that he's OK with sites copying the content of this site wholesale. What makes you think that he'd object to such a clear-cut case of fair use as satire?
I would just hope that you allowed critical comments as readily as Mike accepts you people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a) ignorance, led by
b) greed.
Have you seen actual politicians debating this stuff? The idiocy (in the pay of avarice) here is pretty much all you hear.
We need to get corporate money out of politics by any means necessary. Too much damage is being done while we wait around for these stupid old bastards to die off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't believe those people understand simple math.
How many videos are upload to Youtube daily? and how many views total Youtube has on all the videos?
Get that and the top 100 videos will be a little fraction of what Youtube offers, Youtube would be there whether a-holes that call themselves content producers where there or not.
The absolute majority of content on Youtube is not from the a-holes from the industry but people and their cats and people keep watching that crap is just incredible.
Some a-holes just have their heads up so far up their own hides that they lost perspective of what real life is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If anyone can't see that in the future, the big studios won't be the ones producing the content people watch, they are just kidding themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whoa
"While it's true that copyright law creates a market for copyright, there's no economic evidence that that, in itself, is desirable."
Mike they are following your advice. The artists and movies and books are the CwF giving people a RtB copyright. But if the copyright industry lets that info out the artists and movie producers and writers may realize they are just being used and stop laying golden copyright eggs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, pretty much.
That pretty much summed up my read-through of the original article. I staggered through it anyway just because it's good to expose yourself to opposing viewpoints.
Here's my favorite part, at the very end:
"What would you like to see happen? What’s the best-case scenario for the situation we’re in now? Because some things aren’t coming back totally. Newspapers, publishing, probably not coming back.
I’d like to see enough law applied in a smart way that we can bring back a market. U.S. publishing is never coming back, but I think we can enforce enough law to create a market, and that’s what we need."
He goes on from there... But I like that 'enforce enough law to create a market'. If you're forcing creation of a market through law, You're Doing It Wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, pretty much.
PHYSICAL publishing, based on printing on dead trees with ink and moving large bundles around? That might be disappearing, but that has nothing to do with the publishing industry as a whole...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A lot of misguided people are under the belief that because they thought of something that is all the work they need to do to get money, they don't want to produce it, to distribute it and to compete with others that would copy them and improve on what they did.
I find it disgusting that those people feel entitled to protections that goes for their entire lifes plus 95 years, not only that derivatives are forbidden and they get to dictate to others where, when and how to consume/use something, that is not right and should END NOW!
If those stupid people where in the restaurant business why should they care if the other restaurants are copying them?
They shouldn't they should improve service and offer other things, and have no power to stop others from copying them or using their own business practices, that way what works is assured to survive if one business go under, it guarantees that consumers will have an alternative access point to products and services even though it can limit growth for one player all the while accelerating and growing the market and consumption.
If that was the model we probably wouldn't have "to big to fail" companies around, although natural monopolies do occur they have a very big difference, they can't force anyone to use them they need to keep improving themselves and offering something so others keep using them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The quote about the top 10 on youtube
But leave aside how much money YouTube makes for the labels, and let's assume that the labels did shrink away. First off, there are plenty of videos on YouTube that have nothing to do with the major labels that have 100s of millions of views. About 1/3 of the top 100 are not music videos (whether all of the music videos are from the majors is not something I am qualified to speak on) which shows that plenty of people would still be on YouTube even if there were no music videos. YouTube would be doing a lot better off without the labels than the Labels would do without YouTube.
As far as making money from YouTube, I don't know the royalties YouTube pays each time a music video is played, but my guess is that they pay better than radio does, considering that radio doesn't pay royalties (yet). So they make massive amounts of money, get tons of promotion, and yet they still whine about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The quote about the top 10 on youtube
Also, Charlie Bit My Finger is still number 6, and I'm guessing the production budget for that video was maybe 1000000% lower than the cost of the number 1 video, which is Justin Bieber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What they do hate, or so it seems, is the blatant infringement that pervades the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm trying to figure out how they could possibly not hate the internet if they're going to make up so many clearly false claims to attack it.
I'd say it's a pretty fair claim to say that they hate the internet.
Just like you hate logic. So we're all good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nowhere is there anything, explicit or implicit, that they hate the internet as you seem to believe. All of their comments (actually, it was only Mr. Levine who made comments) were directed to the manner by which some people are using the medium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I fear for your reading comprehension. It is clear that he hates the internet, because all of the "manner by which some people are using the medium" is what the internet is all about. he hates that and hopes to regulate it to kill it and make it more like TV.
That's horrifying. Unless you're a TV exec.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I suspect that you are not enamored with how some persons drive their autos along Hwy. 101. I also suspect that this does not translate into a hatred of automobiles.
One can like a "tool" without liking how some "tools" use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC 69, it is not logical to invent multiple falsehoods about a tool you like. Therefore, the only logical explanation is the one Mike gave you and which you refuse to accept: that they do hate the internet and what it represents. Namely, freedom of expression and freedom of communication. As I have said before, technology will always undermine what legislation seeks to determine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can appreciate that you have a difference of opinion with Levine and Timberg. But calling them names and saying that the interview "kills braincells" is behavior that should be beneath you. Shame on you for stooping so low.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not saying Mike is always right but I haven't seen any meaningful arguments (around copyright anyway) against his points which are backed up with facts. Usually the people arguing about the importance of copyright only have one REAL argument, they believe that there is a moral imperative that people be paid any amount of money they demand for their content if you somehow "consume" said content. Unfortunately, that is a matter of opinion and if the general level of copyright infringement is any indication, not an opinion which most people share.
On a related note, this interview does "kill braincells" in the logic portion of our brains where we are forced to process his foolish "reasoning."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When responding to the level of bullshit presented in this Salon article (as though any of it where based on facts) it is often important that strong, emotional language is used. This allows you to counteract the overly emotional language being used by your opponents.
This is an opinion blog and Mike is commenting on the news. So what if he occasionally gets frustrated with idiots. This isn't some shitty "journalistic" endeavor where they attempt to show "both sides of the story" regardless of the legitimacy of the arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ya missed one...
Center of the article
/snip
The middleman hasn’t been eliminated.
snip/
Really!? Youtube HAS PAID SOMEBODY!?!
As I understand it, never having posted anything to Youtube,
everything goes up FOR FREE.
You make your money, if any, off of the ad-clicks.
You POST to Youtube, TO GET NOTICED. And to drive traffic to YOUR website.
Like I say, as I understand it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.amazon.com/Jane-Slayre-Charlotte-Bronte/dp/B004KABG3Q/ref=pd_sim_b_7
a good example of this is the remixed books of 'Quirk classics'.
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
Sense and Sensibility and Sea monsters
Android Karenina
Jane Slayre
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire slayer
These are remixed books from classics, but i don't see them jumping all over the copyrights that the (original) Authors (and their descendants) had. no one gets upset about how they have 'remixed' these classics and are making 6-10 (or more depending on if it's a hardcover) dollars per book.
but if someone dares to add a little techno to a song, it's so terrible. i think that they need to look into adapting to the new trends that are surfacing everyday, and get a handle on what they want before trying to force it down people's throats with bad information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]