Ex-RIAA Boss Ignores All Criticisim Of SOPA/PIPA, Claims Any Complaints Are Trying To Justify Stealing
from the this-is-how-you-got-into-such-a-mess dept
Over the long weekend, Jay Rosen was kind enough to tweet out a link to my recent "definitive" post highlighting all the problems with SOPA and PIPA. Lots of folks picked up on it, but the one that struck me as the most interesting was from Hilary Rosen, who tweeted back:
The Definitive Post?? Think analog. If a store doesn't sell u what u want, u are justified stealing it?Hilary Rosen, of course, spent many years as the CEO of the RIAA. And while she hasn't been in that job since 2003, she presided over the Napster lawsuit and the beginnings of the Grokster lawsuit. I believe she left just before the RIAA started suing individuals for file sharing. She also appeared to have second thoughts about the strategy she led while in charge of the RIAA. However, this comment suggests otherwise.
Thinking analog has been the major problem that the RIAA (and MPAA, among others) have had for a long, long time. Rosen's big mistake when she was in charge of the RIAA was that she kept thinking analog. Isn't it time, perhaps, that she started thinking digitally?
But, even more to the point, it's getting ridiculous how many people defending SOPA/PIPA are doing so using this logic. They brush off all of the specific concerns, the highlights of problematic language, and they conclude "why are you justifying theft?" Of course, that's ridiculous. Beyond the fact that "theft" and "infringement" are very different (don't get me started), nothing in anyone's complaints about SOPA or PIPA have anything to do with "justifying" infringement. In fact, in the post that was being discussed, we clearly noted that infringement is a problem. We just disagree that PIPA and SOPA are reasonably, or even effective, solutions.
It's really quite ridiculous to lay out in such great detail all of the problems of the bill, only to have someone -- and someone who is partially responsible for the mess the record labels are in today -- brush off the entire thing by falsely stating that we're "justifying stealing." Unfortunately, this kind of "debate" is all too common. It seems that almost no one is interested in actually discussing the problems of the bill. They just insist that if you highlight problems in the bill you're trying to justify something.
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, hilary rosen, pipa, protect ip, sopa
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The RIAA: Think Analogue®
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not that I disagree, but since the RIAA is a US entity wouldn't that be:
The RIAA: Think Analog®
and
The CRIA: Think Analogue®
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But I thought analog taping was killing music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Quite dead.
And all this rampant piracy will kill it even deader. We have Ms Rosen's word on it now. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Le HADOPI: Ne Pas Pensez ®
Sarkozy: ce que l'enfer? ® (lousy attempt at literally translating What the hell)
I humbly admit that I used Google Translate. While I do understand and read French quite well I simply suck at writing and speaking ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fight! Fight! Fight!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ewww, that tweet
Don't worry Hilary, daddy will buy you that new convertible next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ewww, that tweet
Well failed, sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ewww, that tweet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet
No, I disspsed her writing as a that of a valley girl
"(a common negative stereotype of a ditzy woman)"
No, it is a common (why negative?) stereotype of a valley girl.
"and seem to think a former CEO of the RIAA needs her "daddy" to buy her a convertible"
Yes, that is what I think. And you seem to think her being a woman and a former CEO of a lobby group needs defending by you, a strong, manly man. Oh, how manly of you, defending the poor little rich girl from mean old me.
Do you like her or something?
"Clear or do you need an explanation involving sock puppets?"
oooh, how condescending. And ironic.
I can bet if I said that about a man you wouldn't be calling me chauvinistic.
For the record, I don't give a crap what Mike wants, I'm not working for him. I'll comment on what I want, when I want, and say what I want. Now kindly fuck off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet
You are also so far gone that pointing out how wrong you are only serves as an effort in futility, if you truly don't see anything wrong with what you originally wrote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet
What's next "All my best friends are black" when called out upon racism next?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet
Anywhoo...You want to see real chauvinists pigs? Look no further then the employers of Ms.Rose, the RIAA and MPAA companies.
Can't get more chauvinistic then Hollywood my pretties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet
You might want to use sock puppets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet
Fucking asshole
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet
God, you people are morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet
Well, except for those post above that pointed out how you calling her a "valley girl" whose "daddy will buy you that new convertible" is incredibly fucking sexist.
If you had simply called her an "idiot," that would still be insulting, but not sexist.
God, you're a moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But... but...
Every time you criticize SOPA/PIPA, a baby is slaughtered mercilessly with a battle ax, head smashed with a hammer, and its entrails are wrapped around street sign or dangled before the crowds in the most violet and despicable manner known to man.
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! SOPA/PIPA IS FOR THE CHILDREN!!! How can you be against that???
Yeah, it sure isn't for the CEOs' bonuses, politicians' bribes, or the 't-shirts'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But... but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
None of those things is happening efficiently right now with the RIAA involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thinking analog
So, we buy her more cards for Christmas. Merry Christmas SD card makers.
It's so frustrating to be limited by people's habits and thought patterns in a world where there is so much that can be shared so freely and without monetary cost. My condolences to the RIAA on not being able to discern reality anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thinking analog
hahaha, good one. You really think they don't know the difference?
Protip: They do, they want to convince you and everybody else that there isn't one. That way they can continue to leech of us and consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thinking analog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thinking analog
So, we buy her more cards for Christmas. Merry Christmas SD card makers."""
Dude, that is so awesome, thanks for posting this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thinking analog
What do you mean "anymore"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't be mad if I explore CC licensed music, or artists skipping over your archaic business model.
If you can't figure out how to release something worldwide within a week, don't cry when people forget they wanted it when you get around to releasing it in region 5 6 months later.
Your approach to dealing with infringement has been to try and get more laws and make people think it is as horrible as home invasions with people breaking in to steal your last brick of ramen. How much longer until you stop playing the helpless victim and figure out you have so many more ways to make money today than ever before. That there is a world wide market, if you'd stop trying to treat each piece of the world as unconnected from the others.
Maybe you haven't noticed, there are many artists using this internet fad to launch careers and they make more than they ever would have made under your system. How much longer before more artists decide your not needed? It might be time to innovate to keep them rather than try to legislate a perfect world where everyone pays you every 5 minutes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you sell an item in American for $1000 (plus sales tax) and in the UK for £1000 (plus VAT), and then wave your genitals at the Brits when they complain about exchange rates, don't be surprised when they try to find ways to buy the items from US stores. Tell me, do you sell the same item in Japan for ¥1000? Yeah, I didn't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What horseshit. If the store does not sell it, it is not there to "steal" If the store values its customers, it will try to fill the demand, and if they cant the consumer will go elswhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is a digital world you aging dinosaur. Either evolve or become part of the fossil record. I could tell you which I would prefer....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am the great Trollholio! I need SOPA for my bunghole!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
"If a store doesn't sell u what u want, u are justified stealing it?" -- That's been answered YES here MANY times. It's actually the answer that Mike supports with "find a better business model" -- without offering one -- as he ends up saying "pirates gonna pirate, learn to live with it", which is simply unacceptable to the dinosaurs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
The solution is a Better Business Model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
So, I want to start a business too.
My rules?
I don't want to have to work, but I want to have buckets of money thrown at me.
None of that fancy "risk vs. reward" stuff, just money coming in because I want it to.
So, who has my business model?
I expect to see it in 1 week, and 100% garenteed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
And just to have a bit of variety in my responses...HAHAHAHAHAHAH! You've just made yourself look like the absolute fool YET AGAIN!
You keep demanding that Mike come up with a solution...he keeps responding with "Better business model", but you just don't want to accept that (then later on call the RIAA dinosaurs for doing exactly that!)
As for how many people here have said YES to the question - how could they? It's not physically possible for them to have said Yes, because if the store DOESN'T sell the item, then it is impossible in every sense to STEAL it. How can I take something when its not there to begin with?
Besides, why must Mike be the one to come up with a better business model? Haven't you thought about coming up with one yourself? Or are you waiting for him to do all the hard work of trying and experiment, then planning to copy and leech off what he's done?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
Why I repeat the phrase "sunk (or fixed) costs":
It's copy/pasted from Mike's piece having the movie example: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.shtml
He writes that a movie cost $100 million to make -- after mentioning this impressive figure, he then sets it aside as "sunk (or fixed) costs" -- and makes market conditions a fictional "perfectly competitive" so that he can "prove" marginal costs are the only relevant factor for distributing movies.
My synopsis omits nothing: his example is stark once some litter is removed. He's already pulled the trick necessary to be "right". Just read down to where he mentions and dismisses "sunk (or fixed) costs". -- STOP right there and ask how those could possibly be ignored... Only answer Mike gives is because he /says/ so. [When pressed by me later (in next link), Mike tries the line that "sunk (or fixed) costs" don't matter for /pricing/, but that's merely /continuing/ to claim having a (wanted and already promoted) movie in hand for only distribution costs.]
In reality, one would only sort of ignore "sunk (or fixed) costs" IF they'd long since been recovered, and if old method worked for that, who'd be fooling around with new methods? His whole thesis falls apart at the premises.
Don't forget that Mike supposedly has a degree in economics. I hold that kids running a lemonade stand know better. This isn't a slip-up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
More than once, you kept whining for Mike to come up with a way to recoup that magic number, guaranteed. And when he does attempt a possible solution, you put your hands over your hears and go "Nanananana! Can't hear you!"
For proof of that last statement, that is what you wrote ("And if you say yet again "better business model", I just may LEAVE! It's NOT an answer.) By saying you're going to completely ignore what the other side is going to say...means you have made yourself out to be a complete fool.
Well, thanks for answering my question. I completely disagree with everything you said, but you answered it. I won't repeat my question any more. Instead, I'll concentrate on responding to everything else that's in your posts.
Here's a free tip: If you want to call the RIAA dinosaurs for not embracing new business models, it doesn't help your case if you also don't embrace new business models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
Ref: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/prodtheo.htm
Fixed costs play into Total costs, but are those things that cannot be avoided. Ex: if you have a factory, your fixed costs may include insurance, labor, materials, utilities, etc. So they are important as far as total costs and where the Average Variable Cost determines the minimum price. Marginal costs actually include things like expected or required profits.
The theory can get eye bleeding at times, but the gist is that Mike is correct in a general way regarding fixed costs as they are the costs that cannot be avoided in the manufacturing and engineering process. If you are going to make "X", then you are going to have to pay (at a minimum (A, B, C, etc). These costs are and should be factored into the final price, but also note that as a company losses monopoly rents with the advent of competition, the price tends towards marginal cost. this does not mean that it will reach marginal cost, but will tend there as a consequence of market forces.
Once the price drops below marginal cost for any of the players in the industry, it is expected that they will fail and thus leave said industry leaving fewer competitors who are able to compete at that price break or introduce productivity gains that allow them to make more than their marginal cost which is then translated into higher profits.
The kiker here though is that once the others in the industry make the same or similar changes, it opens up room in the game to more companies who see that they can makle a reasonable profit which is part of marginal cost calculations and the whole thing starts over again - in a perfectly competitive market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
Proof please. I would love to see what you have for that.
"That's been answered YES here MANY times. It's actually the answer that Mike supports"
Ahh, adding real world sensibilities to a world with no physical restrictions. Well done, though at this point I would expect better of you OOTB. Last I check Amazon or iTunes has never "run out" of a digital download, but I could be wrong. As for how Mike supports real world theft over suggesting that people play with newer business models is quit a leap even for you. You are getting into the Big Search arena of Bob.
He is another one of my favorites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
Its not *new* business models they need. They need a normal business model. I guess we should start passing laws to protect auto insurance companies in case someone creates teleportation and now cars become irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
Perhaps there just isn't one.
The cure shouldn't be worse than the disease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
You have said this before and have never actually left. Why do you threaten to leave like it would be a bad thing? You very rarely offer anything of value to the conversation and those times you do, you point is so muddled and convoluted that responding is a chore.
If you don't like the proposals that Mike has shared on numerous occasions why continue to ask for them?
No one is stopping you from leaving yet you never do. Perhaps it is time to man up and follow through with your "threat".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
\m/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
The world changes and it is YOUR responsibility to adapt or fall by the wayside. Life is uncertain and as an adult you need to come to terms with. If you don't want to take risks get a job that just gives a paycheck and doesn't require to take a leap of faith in your product or abilities. After all not every lottery ticket is a winner ... or does that upset you also?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
Better business model!
Better business model!
Everybody now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
And just because you've stood with your fingers in your ears shouting "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" every time Mike offers examples of better business models doesn't mean he hasn't offered up one or two. In fact, I'm surprised you can hear anything at all.
Your reading comprehension appears remarkably selective.
P.S. The solution? A better business model. No, seriously. You've got the wrong end of this stick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
This is the second time I've called your bluff about leaving. Put your money where your mouth is and do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
The solution is a BETTER BUSINESS MODEL.
Take a hint, boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
To be perfectly honest, if I was an investor in such things I'd be avoiding your project as a potential disaster if you need infringement (the proper legal term -- not theft) made a capital crime for even thinking about.
And people regularly spend skywards of $100 million in Hollywood on movies these days so you're nothing all that special.
You're the guy wanting to make the movie it's up to you to come up with a business model, not Mike, me or anyone else.
I don't think I'd toss a loonie at a movie version of Hey Diddle Diddle anyway.
I suggest you start off on a smaller scale like competing with the 5 year old up the street in summer in her peanut and lemonade stand and see if you can compete with her before talking on Hollywood.
(PS: Loonie is the $1 CDN coin for those who don't know).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
Avoid spending $100 million in making a movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
Burps
The solution is a better business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
You're just a tease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
The solution is a better business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
a.k.a. A Better Business Model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe the store's screwdrivers are too expensive so I build my own. Maybe they don't have the particular size screwdrivers I need so I build my own. Maybe my friend has a screwdriver that I can borrow. Maybe my friend has an extra screwdriver that he just gives to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe I should change my name to "Pirate John".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2. SOPA/PIPA are something.
Ergo, SOPA/PIPA must be done.
Any arguments to the contrary are both illogical and unamerican.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
You continue to decry copyright, while giving no other means for /artists/ to protect their works from Big Media (another point that cuts both ways)...
You continue to dance around the problem of piracy -- of course nearly everyone here denies that they do it, so the whole area shouldn't even matter to you -- while saying that if you can't get what you want, then you WILL pirate it...
You continue to say that large numbers of artists (at least, rappers and mixers with cheap products, none who sink, say, $100M into a movie) are already using the power of the Internet to get around the gatekeepers, while pointing out that industry profits are up...
You continue to insist that piracy is actually good for the industry by "promoting" its products, while of course unable to answer how an instance of consumption without paying in any way results in more income for the content owner.
Your positions are self-contradictory.
Face it: your newfangled "digital" notions are a ZERO, not a one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
This is why copyright was originally meant to be very temporary. Some really smart guys a long time ago figured out that trying to treat a song like a piece of land comes with some serious problems.
Copyright doesn't exist for itself. It exists for other reasons that all of the people that whine about piracy seldom acknowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452637/
Lady in the Water. 2006, Estiated 75,000,000 budget, did not quite get out from under that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
answer: MOST OF IT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
I swear we've seen articles about people doing just fine with CC licenses, and even traditional copyright without having to hand them over to a corporation.
The problem is the refusal to admit there is a huge market that they have no real desire to address. That in a world where a message can get to the upside down land of OZ in seconds, there should not been a 6 month gap in providing content people want to purchase.
Industry profits are up, which guts the whole piracy is killing them argument, and at the same time there are people being successful by leaving the gatekeepers in the past where they want to stay.
Here is an instance - if someone hears a song they like on the radio, they will purchase it. If someone sees a TV show they like, they will purchase it. The problem is when they play games and make it harder for the consumer to obtain what they want by adding restrictions and delays to the release ignoring that people can and will turn to alternate methods to obtain it when they want it. Hearing a song from an unknown might create a multimillion dollar empire - See Justin Beiber violating copyright by singing other peoples songs on YouTube and becoming famous for it.
The zero I think you are seeing is the number of real things you ever manage to bring up, because your a shill. You have your opinion and you assume anyone who disagrees must be wrong. You steadfastly stand by your statements as they are proven wrong time and time again.
But please tell me...
Why are you spending $100M on a movie?
:D
Oh damn... I think I just out trolled you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
Sorry, wrong on two fronts. This has been asked and answered several times by mike. Feel free to search, but I've seen it (and seen it pointed out to you several times). Second, and I'm bolding this because it's important, solving large content distributors' business model problems is NOT the responsibility of the tech industry.
"You continue to dance around the problem of piracy -- of course nearly everyone here denies that they do it, so the whole area shouldn't even matter to you -- while saying that if you can't get what you want, then you WILL pirate it..."
Mike says the following things on piracy very frequently:
- It's wrong
- He doesn't do it
- He doesn't think other people should do it
- Studies (with actual published data and methodology) show people who pirate also tend to consume more
- These laws will not stop piracy.
This is not dancing.
"You continue to say that large numbers of artists (at least, rappers and mixers with cheap products, none who sink, say, $100M into a movie) are already using the power of the Internet to get around the gatekeepers, while pointing out that industry profits are up..."
Ok, not much of a point in this, but many of the artists Mike points to who are using the internet successfully tend to be alternative rock types. Mike points to remixers for a different purpose: showing the cultural value of transformative reuse of content.
"You continue to insist that piracy is actually good for the industry by "promoting" its products, while of course unable to answer how an instance of consumption without paying in any way results in more income for the content owner."
I'll give you an example: someone pirates Mass Effect, plays the game, loves it, when Mass Effect 2 comes out on Steam, buys it. Would have ignored but for the pirated Mass Effect. I know several people who have done this.
Another example: people who pirate and like Metallica, shell out $180/seat for concert tix(despite the fact that Lars Ulrich is an epic douchebag).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
Bolding means nothing. THIS or /this/ is how you note importance. Duh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
The next year they were headlining large arena's.
Sorry if this example actually requires hard work and dedication... something that greedtards despise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
They connected so well with their fans that the Deadheads would take summers off so they could follow the band from city to city to see all of their shows.
They were also one of the few rock 'n roll pioneers to retain ownership of their music masters and publishing rights.
So, yeah, examples of better business models are out there, one just needs spend some time and energy on it instead of trying to get someone else to do the work for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
Let's think about that one for a second, Blue. Hmm... can we come up with any examples of content being given away for free as part of a business model? I feel like there's gotta be something out there but dammt, you might just be right - I have never ever consumed any content without paying! That's why all TVs have coin slots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
So, you want to sink $100 million into a movie? Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
No Blue, they wouldn't have been adopted by now. It took them practically 10 years to adopt mp3s. Ten years after the digital format was in use and pined for by the customers. And now streaming is becoming the "in" thing and how people want their products, and the content industry's are still trying to place "physical goods" costs/values on "digital goods". They're making changes but still doing so with an "analog" mindset. Mike routinely offers ideas and suggestions and presents articles on people who try new business methods. People like you come in here and denounce Mike, the artists he presents or make demands like "I WANT A GUARANTEE THAT I MAKE BACK MY $100 MILLION MASNICK!!!" You can't only repeat yourself and state so many new ideas for so long before you say "f*ck it, you don't want to know so I'm not going to bother telling you anymore".
"You continue to decry copyright, while giving no other means for /artists/ to protect their works from Big Media (another point that cuts both ways)..."
Actually, he continues to denounce ABUSE of copyright. Also ABUSE of laws to sustain old business models and industries that are failing to adapt. We see plenty of articles about artists who benefit from Creative Commons license or more traditional copyright and whose works are protected by said things. And please don't say "Big Media", you sound like bob. Big Media if anything are the ones screwing over artists with copyright as it currently is. That needs to change. Copyright was originally intended to be a limited time thing (as in under a decade). Now it's Life + 70 years (and very few if any artists benefit from that, it's various studios and labels who do). A drastic and ridiculous change when compared to copyright as it was originally envisioned.
"You continue to dance around the problem of piracy -- of course nearly everyone here denies that they do it, so the whole area shouldn't even matter to you -- while saying that if you can't get what you want, then you WILL pirate it..."
Mike has done no dancing around the problem of copyright. He acknowledges it, has stated it's wrong but he understands why it happens and has suggested that people just deal with it. It's going to happen. Focusing on only piracy and people who pirate instead of the customers you do have is going to hurt you in the long run. Your customers are out there, find out what they want. They'll gladly tell you. Then meet that demand. Ignoring it for whatever reason will also hurt you monetarily in the long run and push your customers to others who'll gladly provide them with what they want.
"You continue to say that large numbers of artists (at least, rappers and mixers with cheap products, none who sink, say, $100M into a movie) are already using the power of the Internet to get around the gatekeepers, while pointing out that industry profits are up..."
You and your fixation on $100M into a movie. Sigh. [shakes head in bafflement] Your fixed cost sunk into anything are not MY (as a customer's) problem. I don't give a f*ck if you spent $10 grand creating a movie or $100M. That's not my concern. I am willing to pay what is a reasonable price/value to me as a customer to have your product. If you don't like it, fine. That's your prerogative, I'll take my money elsewhere. But you don't dictate to me what you want. That's not how the market works. We, the customers, tell you what we think your product is worth. If you place the value too high and refuse to negotiate, we'll get what we want elsewhere and it's your loss. Great example, the HP Touchpad. At $400 it was not selling. Like at all. At $99, it literally flew off the shelves to the point that it was sold out (online and in-stores) within 2 days. People DID NOT think it was worth $400, despite what HP sunk into the product (which was $100s of millions, with the whole R&D and WebOS purchase). They, the customers, DID think it was worth $99 though. This is what we're trying to get into that thick skull of yours, Blue. Your sunk costs matter not to us. If you want guarantees, you're out of luck. If however, you want to make a buck, price accordingly in what customer's feel is an appropriate value for your product.
"You continue to insist that piracy is actually good for the industry by "promoting" its products, while of course unable to answer how an instance of consumption without paying in any way results in more income for the content owner."
Mike and plenty on here have pointed out how if you "pirate" a song or an album you might enjoy the music and the artists so much that you'll pay to go see them in concert or buy their merchandise or what have you. That is of course an example and an answer to how an instance of consumption without paying in any way resulting in more income for the content owner. Unless by "content owner" you mean the studio/label, in which case it isn't. But then again, they aren't content creators now are they? I hate seeing the "think of the artists" thing one moment and essentially "f*ck the artists" the next. Which is what you're doing. You're focusing on the studios/labels and to heck with the artists side of things. Then of course there are examples of people pirating games like Minecraft (and a few others) and becoming so engaged and amazed by the product that they then go on to purchase the actual product. Which to me is a "gained sale". I was unaware of your product, I pirated it, I loved it, I've bought it and the derivatives since. My gosh! A great example. I won't continue with others, you'll ignore them anyway.
"Your positions are self-contradictory."
Your positions are asinine. Your point being? We can go back and forth all day with you, if you're unwilling to be even remotely reasonable or listen to what we have to say why are we going to keep talking? In fact, if Mike is so self-contradictory and unwilling to give answers to you and your kind, why come here at all? You've made a threat to leave, so be gone already. People propose ideas and business models to you, specifically you Blue, all the time. You ignore them. Stop covering your eyes and ears and actually pay attention to what people are showing/telling you. If you're unwilling to learn, that's not our problem. That's yours.
"Face it: your newfangled "digital" notions are a ZERO, not a one."
Face it: your oldfangled "analog" notions are DYING, as in O-B-S-O-L-E-T-E. Adapt or don't. But don't b*tch when others are moving forward and you're stuck in the same place. Don't complain that there are no answers to your questions when you covers your ears and go "la la la I can't hear you". Don't come here if there's nothing worth coming here for (according to your own words).
I'm done replying to you. AC out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
You're quite right it does cut both ways and you just stabbed yourself in the navel with it.
You manage it again when you criticize Mike for his stance that some free distribution of, say, a song, is actually a promotion that often leads to more per unit sales for the artist. Note: The artist is rarely the "content" owner because Big Media, that INDUSTRY, you seem so keen on both protecting and dissing all at once, ensures that said artist has signed all copyright over to them in return for rarely paid "royalties" dependent on a number of factors including sunspots on the 4th of July for the artist to ever see a dime. (The latter is a variable though massive cost in how Big Media does its accounting.)
In the meanwhile there's a thriving group of independent artists with access to good production equipment (and if you think it's all about mixing you're more ignorant than I imagined and that's going some). Most of who sell high quality songs and CDs across this evil thing called the internet and do very nicely by it if they connect with people who like their music. Y'know, fans.
Keep twisting yourself into these knots and someone is going to mistake you for a pretzel and start dumping sea salt on you.
It's almost too painful to watch.
Almost though it says volumes about applying analogue rules to a digital environment which isn't going anywhere and has changed things like the rules of production and distribution. It's your notions that add up to a big fat zero because you refuse to see the changes.
More importantly refuse to adapt to them. Refusal to adapt leads to extinction not false notions of things like "piracy" and false panics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
People aren't sampling and then buying.
People are ripping it off, listening to it all the time on their ipod, and never bothering to remunerate the artist.
Fuck you for being such a lying slimeball.
Go die in a fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
Because all the evidence and studies show to the contrary. The "pirates" are doing the most buying. I.e. they like what they find and they then go out and pay for even more stuff. (Note: These studies are being done independently. From non-biased sources/groups.)
"People are ripping it off, listening to it all the time on their ipod, and never bothering to renumerate the artist."
Again, I'd like to see some proof of your "gigantic load of horse shit". Because evidence shows to the contrary. People are acquiring things and then giving money to the artists elsewhere. Either through purchase of merchandise, other media they've produced, and/or the more popular concerts/shows. (This applies easily to film as it does music.) And that money goes DIRECTLY into the artists' pockets. As opposed to say the coffers of middlemen.
"Fuck you for being such a lying slimeball.
Go die in a fire."
Well, one could say right back at you, but that'd mean sinking to your level. Of which, as much as I want to do, I shan't do just because I am better than you and an adult. I do not need to resort to ad homs to make a point. I can make one using logic and facts. I haven't presented any in this article (as in actual links) because you haven't either. I'm of the mind that you can state things and not back them up, I can do the same. (Except of course my data/facts/evidence are REAL and readily available and easy to find online.)
AC, grow up or get lost. The adults are talking here. We don't need your childish posts cluttering up screen space.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
Yes, thank you for your intelligent input. Truly, you are a master debater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
Sadly it doesn't include you.
I didn't think I'd said anything about sampling then buying in my post but now that you mention it there's good evidence that such things do occur. At least according to the independent folks I know and mention above. 100% of the time? Of course not. But even then they're getting heard and making sales because of it. Not 1 for 1 but sales. Same way it worked in the days of AM top 40 sans the royalties paid by the radio stations most of which didn't make it back to the artist either.
But still it stands to reason that having not said it I can hardly be a LYING slimeball. Slimeball, perhaps, which only shows you need to be careful where and what you step in. As for committing sexual acts on a slimeball I understand that's very uncomfortable, cold and not at all satisfying. And you need SOS pads to get the slime off.
As for dying in a fire, no thanks, I use those to stay warm on winter nights not to cook myself or others in.
Take care and remember the idea when starting a fire is not to hurt yourself or others. Of course that means your age I find that unlikely. (Emotional and mental age, that is.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
Another broken promise. I knew I should've listened to my mom when she told me not to believe blue people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
The industries are still making money...
So, we still do not see why something needs "fixed".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
If they can't turn a buck, maybe they deserve to wither and die. They had a good run.
Since they can and are turning over bales of cash, maybe they are just being greedy.
And the real bottom line here is that the industry can't do what they are trying to do. The community won't allow it, and we have many many smart, motivated people that do this stuff for fun rather than because it's their job. We'll route around and through your laws, and show you up for the fool you are, every time.
Piracy has been around since music was written on parchment and sold on the street. You can join in and try to find a way to make it work for you, or you can fight and fail.
It's way more fun on our side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Saw your latest story over on TF, wonder if anyone will submit his public statements to the court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry for offtopic (on a second thought, it's not: know what "sopa" means in Swedish? Applicable to copyright trolls).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Think analog. If a store doesn't sell u what u want, u are justified stealing it? "
I wonder if she would like others using this think analog bit when it comes to people for bashing the the industry(labels & artists) for its drugs, alcohol get those bitches & hoes attitudes and don't forget to kill those cops!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
QUICK NOW, IN TWENTY-FIVE WORDS OR LESS, ANSWER.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
SOPA/PIPA is their better business model.
First, it starts by passing these laws.
Now they have the keys to the troll gate, which means we must pay or they will eat us.
Next, they start removing things arbitrarily from the internet, until people reach a point that they are willing to pay enhanced "trollway taxes" that the industries will collect.
Once they have these in place, they will open the internet up again until they decide it is raise time. Once that happens, they will tighten their grip for their "trollway taxes", and increase the tax.
See, then they get to collect more money simply by squeezing, instead of actually having to innovate and compete.
Guess OOTB is right, they already have a better business model. So, time to bend over and pass the lube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
> an answer.
No, they're repeating it because you threatened to leave if they did. It's a 'hope springs eternal' sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
There, 5 words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
why do we need to figure out your new business model?
why do we need these draconian, over-reaching laws placed over our heads to protect your old business model?
what pisses me off is the mentality of these execs making boatloads of cash; that this is the best they could come up with:
1. suing people by the thousands
2. pushing insane laws down our throats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
Quick, now, in however many words it takes (I'm not gonna put a limit) come up with a business model yourself! Instead of waiting for someone else to do it! Do you want to know what the magic word is for that? INNOVATION! Something that you apparently are deathly allergic to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
It is not my job to come up with a valid new business model for some outdated media company...
either our Benevolent Media Overlords figure something out on their own or they die...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
(3 words)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
Sell products that I want, that are convient for me to use, at a price that makes sense to me.
In the end, if a business can't fulfill that simple axiom, I don't engage in infringement, but I sure as heck don't buy. Details are a problem for the busniness, not for me as a consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
Or the aforementioned "sell the scarce" (perhaps pared with "give away the infinite")
Though I think the most comprehensive and succinct is "Ignore Blue"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
But if offshore companies are illegally keeping your product from being scarce, what do think they are going to do?
Sell t-shirts?
Sorry, but they're not in the t-shirt business.
So they go after those breaking the law and messing with the scarcity of their goods.
I don't understand the surprise in them doing so. Or all this phony indignation about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
Come up with a way of doing business that doesn't depend on forcing scarcity on to a good that's by definition infinite?
"Sell t-shirts?"
Why are you people so bereft of imagination that you can't think of any way of doing business that doesn't either involve blocking process or selling t-shirts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
But if offshore companies are illegally keeping your product from being scarce, what do think they are going to do?
No see, I meant REAL scarcity. Not artificial scarcity. Digital music is not scarce and it's not "offshore companies" keeping it from being so, it's the very nature of the technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
Define "real" scarcity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
McDonald's didn't become a multinational because it was able to stop others from doing their own Big Macs, Coca Cola didn't had a hold on distribution until the 90's and many other real world examples didn't use a monopoly to do business, in fact every single business that depended on a monopoly has fallen to the sideways, what makes you believe you want?
Governments? LoL
Music, movies and books are a service treat it as such offer something that is good and people will give you money, don't and people will find other ways, legal or illegal. In the case of music there are enough legal options now, so why would people give musicians that don't show up at their local bars and venues to play? Why would anyone buy a apparel(i.e. T-Shirts, shorts, underwear or whatever) from people who insult them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
And somehow they are growing, the problem is not piracy, the real problem is that consumers in "mature" markets are disillusioned they want something new to happen and they are looking everywhere for the next big thing and you dopes keep getting in the way of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
The distinction between real and artificial scarcity is not exactly hard to understand. An apple is genuinely scarce: if I give it to you, I don't have it any more. A JPEG of an apple can only be artificially scarce: if I give it to you, I still have it, unless a law forces me to delete my copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
So what?
Once again, providers of IP are not in the t-shirt business.
They are recognized as providing a valuable service and governments have thus given them protection under the law for centuries.
Might want to accept that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
No it doesn't. It used to go hand in hand with managing resources and/or making the most of limited physical goods, but most of those market realities are irrelevant when considering digital goods.
"Once again, providers of IP are not in the t-shirt business."
Once again, you have a ridiculous obsession with a tiny part of the options available to the industry. No wonder you fail.
"They are recognized as providing a valuable service and governments have thus given them protection under the law for centuries."
The service is contributing to culture and the common good, not making profit because they'd rather restrict the market to whatever suits them over their potential customers.
"Might want to accept that."
I accept reality. Maybe you'd do well to do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
I find the rest of your comments argumentative opinions that have no basis in fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
You may feel smug, but you still look like you don't know what you're talking about. Feel free to explain to me why you're not - try adding facts, though. Bare assertions really don't help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
Are you going to read up on economic theory and understand why artificial scarcity goes hand in hand with IP?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
Actually I think you're right. IP used to involve a natural scarcity, but as it started getting easier to reproduce, copyright laws were put in place to restrict that abundance and replace the natural scarcity with some artificial scarcity. Now there is no longer any natural scarcity; it's purely artificial.
I think you are missing the mark on the purpose of copyright law though, at least in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
What is so valuable?
The monopoly that they granted themselves and extended to perpetuity?
The monopoly on story telling, on singing and dancing?
I don't see that as valuable I see that as a real problem to be solved and that means ignoring the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
Sorry, but noone cares.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
First run broadcast available on-line with ads 24 hours after air date.
On line subscriptions for cable content.
24 words problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
Ok, you know that thing the recording industry is doing now?
Well, do exactly the opposite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
Well, do exactly the opposite.
Make good music and let people access it? Insanity!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
With that said here is your less than 25 word answer.
The better business models are those that dont include YOU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
You promised you'd leave if we kept repating it.
Going back on your word of honor?
Typical Republican.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
It would be better stated if you use the generic term for them all "crooked politicians", don't worry about people believing only a subset of them are crooked the population know every and each one of them are crooked, we all know the system itself is crooked and bad need of a fix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
D'oh forgot which industry that was for? Seems to have worked well for both so far
hmmm perhaps they should take after those crazy swedes an consider legalising it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
Oh, that's right; I forgot that large paragraphs give you tummyache.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
I know I could get good stuff for free legally, but I do not want that stuff, I want yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digital shelving takes nearly no space. The shelf is near endless. Why are they bare?
Every other market has learned if it isn't on the shelf it doesn't make money. Unlike brick and mortar stores, where shelf space is a concern because of it's limits, digital stores are only a front for warehousing.
At the rate the entertainment industry is going, they're gonna have to invent a backwards pedaling bike. The way forward is hindered by blinders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How can any Nation in this World take us seriously as a Nation of Freedom when we have draconian type laws ?
We will have to shut up and stop telling other Nations they are repressive,etc.
FUCK YOU WASHINGTON !
Do not vote for anyone who signs this ! Better yet we should try and vote all these assholes out and another good idea is to hold mass rallies in Washington 2012 and mobilize the Country.I would even hitch-hike from Maine to fight for freedom and our American Way.I feel a showdown is going to happen the way things are going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't expect any more from inferior people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the Proper Response Should be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Try thinking like the RIAA
She used "u" as a short form for "you". There was another short form in there that you may not have noticed: Think anal oh gee: analog. Because, oh gee, the RIAA likes when they have the customers bending over and taking it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Thinking analog" might actually work
Maybe the people running the MPAA/RIAA might actually be able to wrap their heads around that analogy, and finally begin to understand that infringement isn't theft.
...Oh, who am I kidding. Look at this woman's attitude toward potential customers. Just look at it. If you told her, "the customer is always right", she'd probably shriek, "BLASPHEMY!" and slap your face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Thinking analog" might actually work
Actually I suspect she would agree wholeheartedly. But keep in mind that her definition of "customer" is someone giving her $20 for a CD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Thinking analog" might actually work
Because, you would have to be in the right region, or else you could hand her the $20 and still not get her CD/Book/DVD.
So, I will go with AC on this one. Or else you need to broaden that to "$20, in the right place, at the right time".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So with that logic, if I was to buy an apple from a fruit store, and they don't have any in stock, I stole it.
Let's apply this to a digital store. So iTunes does not have a song I want, yet Amazon MP3 does? Buying it from Amazon, I'm stealing it from iTunes or is it I'm not giving them my business? I think we all know the answer.
Hilary, what has the RIAA done to your mind?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Shifting Sands of Ownership
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I find interesting is that when I did the web searches the most prominent answers I found resembled this one, where "binary" or "all-or-nothing" thinking turns out to be a psychological disorder.
And here I was thinking that it was merely a logical fallacy. Silly me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see they are living up to their name.
Real Ignorant Asshats of America
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they aren't selling what I want, how could I steal it from them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA
I have been a reader of yours and Techdirt for a long time and I appreciate your passion and your brain. I am reluctant to get into this because I was really just playing around over the wekekend with my thouhts on SOPA. But you are interpreting my tweet to Jay wrongly and given that your words started this discusion, I will give you my thoughts directly. This is what you said in your piece: "Thus, the real issue is that this is a business model problem. As we've seen over and over and over again, those who embrace what the internet enables, have found themselves to be much better off than they were before. They're able to build up larger fanbases, and to rely on various new platforms and services to make more money.
And, as we've seen with near perfect consistency, the best way, by far, to decrease infringement is to offer awesome new services that are convenient and useful. This doesn't mean just offering any old service -- and it certainly doesn't mean trying to limit what users can do with those services. And, most importantly, it doesn't mean treating consumers like they were criminals and "pirates." It means constantly improving the consumer experience. When that consumer experience is great, then people switch in droves. You can, absolutely, compete with free, and many do so. If more were able to without restriction, infringement would decrease. If you look at the two largest contributors to holding back "piracy" lately, it's been Netflix and Spotify. Those two services alone have been orders of magnitude more successful in decreasing infringement than any new copyright law. Because they compete by being more convenient and a better experience than infringement."
And so my response was "Think analgo" not as in analog policy vs digital policy but think of the real world we live in and the ethical issues we face every day. My point wss that I can be pissed that the GAP doesn't have an outfit that is as stylish or fit as well as I want. And I can think that they arent serving their customer when they give me ugly clothes that dont fit well. ie: their busiess model sucks. But i don't think that gives me the right to take any of their clothese without paying for it just becaseu i am an unhappy customer. That was my oly point. Do I think that the content industry has moved waaay too slowly in putting their content online? Absolutely. Do I thinkthey could have been and should be more innovative? of course. But I also know that these are huge shps turning around in creeks and however easy the answers seem to you , they are often really hard. When people screw up their business, their sales go down. That has happened in the entertainment business. They are paying a price for their pace of change. BUT, there is also stealing. Pur old simple unethical stealing. Call it whatever you want - the march of technology - the inevitable cost of innovation, etc. To the writer or songwriter who makes their money on SALES, it is stealing.
And while I love the dialog by for and about consumers and fans on these issues, I have no patience for big companies like Google who not only throw huge sums of money out there buying professors and economists and think tanks to kill any effort at copyright protection, they make a fortune on search advertising for those same illegal products.
So, your first sentence was right, I have long been willing to shine an inattractive searchlight at my old compatriots. But I have no patience for the finger pointing and nastiness of the so called tech fans in this debate. Thank god I don't have to care so much anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SOPA
Actually, it's copyright infringement.
You can't "steal sales". "Stealing" is meaningless when you use it for everything you disagree with.
Steal a kiss? Steal an idea? Steal a base! We should make a law to outlaw baseball.
Copying is not Theft
www.youtube.com/watch?v=djVaJN0f0VQ
If I play a song that you wrote, am I "STEALING YOUR SONG?"
If I read a book aloud, am I STEALING THE WORDS?
If I teach my children how to build a birdbath, am I stealing birdbaths?
Being a politician is stealing, plain and simple. (plain and simple are mighty words that are often used to describe something that isn't plain nor simple... basically the equivalent of "it is because I say so, shut up!")
Think analog. You wouldn't run a red light, so why are you looking at internet porn!
Think analog. You wouldn't kick a puppy, so why do you play videogames!
Think analog. You wouldn't burn a building down, so why do you flame in internet forums!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: “BUT, there is also stealing. Pur old simple unethical stealing.”
If you find a shoplifter in your shop, do you call in your lawyers? Get them to file a cease-and-desist against the shoplifter, and threaten them with a lawsuit if they don’t stop? Maybe try to get the bus company to stop giving them rides to your shop, or ban them from the public transport system altogether?
No, you do none of these things, you call the cops, and let the cops throw the book at the perp, probably put them in jail.
Why don’t you do this for copyright infringement, then? Because it’s not “stealing”, that’s why!
So fucking shut up about fucking “stealing”, already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA
Now, let's contrast that with digital goods. Whether you want it or not, you own the copyright to your post. I just copied it into twelve different notepad windows. Did you notice? I then saved the copies. Zipped them up and emailed them to ten different people. Still your post remains. Did you feel anything as I violated your exclusive right to distribution? A great disturbance in the force, maybe? I'm guessing, no. However, anyone who has inventory records for the Gap store can verify if each of the shirts that are now gone have been paid for or not.
To really understand the issues of "analog policy vs digital policy" you have to wrap your head around a key point: Any comparison of intellectual property to actual physical property will fail. Ultimately, if you are trying to make your thought patterns say "copyright infringement = stealing" you have warped your thinking to a point where you just won't understand what is happening in the real world. Which, by the way, includes the so-called "digital world", and denying that also warps your thinking. But that's another post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA
We consumers are not allowed to have any input on legislation like the DMCA or SOPA, but self-interested parties like the RIAA and MPAA get full access and even get to help draft the legislation. Yet they wonder why pirates don't care about copyright.
The politicians never get to hear talk about more relaxed copyright laws so that it's something a consumer can respect. All they hear about is making it stronger so RIAA and MPAA members can make more money, because politicians equate more money with more jobs (which isn't true at all). Yet they wonder why pirates don't care about copyright.
I never hear about the government investigating the deceptive accounting practices of the movie and music industry, or any official uproar over the multi-page user agreements one must unconditionally agree with just to legally purchase a single song on iTunes. Yet they wonder why pirates don't care about copyright.
Nobody in Washington talks about how a century of culture - which defines who we are, shapes us, and gives us unity and identity and is shared by all - is owned by a handful of multi-national corporations and will be for the rest of our lives. Yet they wonder why pirates don't care about copyright.
Politicians don't talk about how much of the profits on copyrighted work from artists long dead is only benefiting the lawyers and accountants and CEOs of these corporations, when those works should be available to the public at large. Yet they wonder why pirates don't care about copyright.
All the government seems interested in is addressing the whims of big business - the RIAA or Google. There seems to be no interest anymore in helping the regular consumer. I guess it's because big business hires people like you to keep constantly knocking on their door to push their agenda - something regular consumers can't do. Yet they wonder why pirates don't care about copyright.
There's no question that large scale infringement is happening online. The question is what to do about it. SOPA is not the answer. How about we start with some copyright laws that everyone can respect? Maybe then we lowly consumers will have some sympathy for the RIAA and MPAA's woes.
You want to bring ethics into this, there's a few places to start. That's analog thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justifying Theft
I nearly complained that it was a bit OTT but I didn't want to be accused of justifying theft. They said it would stop the kids stealing after all.
The name RIAA should be a dead give away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA
I have been a reader of yours and Techdirt for a long time and I appreciate your passion and your brain. I am reluctant to get into this because I was really just playing around over the wekekend with my thouhts on SOPA. But you are interpreting my tweet to Jay wrongly and given that your words started this discusion, I will give you my thoughts directly. This is what you said in your piece:
"Thus, the real issue is that this is a business model problem. As we've seen over and over and over again, those who embrace what the internet enables, have found themselves to be much better off than they were before. They're able to build up larger fanbases, and to rely on various new platforms and services to make more money.
And, as we've seen with near perfect consistency, the best way, by far, to decrease infringement is to offer awesome new services that are convenient and useful. This doesn't mean just offering any old service -- and it certainly doesn't mean trying to limit what users can do with those services. And, most importantly, it doesn't mean treating consumers like they were criminals and "pirates." It means constantly improving the consumer experience. When that consumer experience is great, then people switch in droves. You can, absolutely, compete with free, and many do so. If more were able to without restriction, infringement would decrease. If you look at the two largest contributors to holding back "piracy" lately, it's been Netflix and Spotify. Those two services alone have been orders of magnitude more successful in decreasing infringement than any new copyright law. Because they compete by being more convenient and a better experience than infringement."
And so my response was "Think analog" not as in analog policy vs digital policy but think of the real world we live in and the ethical issues we face every day. My point was that I can be pissed that the GAP doesn't have an outfit that is as stylish or fit as well as I want. And I can think that they arent serving their customer when they give me ugly clothes that dont fit well. ie: their busiess model sucks. But I don't think that gives me the right to take any of their clothes without paying just because I am an unhappy customer. That was my ONLY point. Do I think that the content industry has moved way too slowly in putting their content online? Absolutely. Do I think they could have been and should be more innovative? of course. But I also know that these are huge ships turning around in creeks and however easy the answers seem to you , they are often really hard. When people screw up their business, their sales go down. That has happened in the entertainment business. They are paying a price for their pace of change. BUT, there is also stealing. Pure old simple unethical stealing. Call it whatever you want - the march of technology - the inevitable cost of innovation, etc. To the writer or songwriter who makes their money on SALES, it is stealing. (Even if they might be thinking about making their money another way.)
And while I love the dialog by for and about consumers and fans on these issues, I have no patience for big companies like Google who not only throw huge sums of money out there buying professors and economists and think tanks to kill any effort at copyright protection, they make a fortune on search advertising for those same illegal products.
So, your first sentence was right, I have long been willing to shine an unattractive searchlight at my old compatriots when they deserve it But I have no patience for the finger pointing and nastiness of the so called tech fans in this debate. Thank god I don't have to care so much anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA
The problem with big labels and movie studios is that people want their stuff, but the labels and studios will not give the customer what they want.
I know of no business that can succeed outside of a monopoly without giving their customers what they want. If I run a game store and do not stock the most popular games and consoles, people will leave my store and find them somewhere else.
Same goes for movies, tv, music and books. People will get them where ever they can. It is up to the producers of the content to make money off that. If Netflix is bringing in money for film and tv while at the same time reducing piracy, then we need more Netflix, not more copyright enforcement. If Spotify is bringing more revenue in for artists, then we need more Spotify not more copyright enforcement.
This is what these big labels and studios don't understand. Now you can claim that it is all about a "big ship turning" but the fact remains is that they have had plenty of time to turn but are staying true to their original and fatal course.
Thank god I don't have to care so much anymore.
Based on your analogies, it really shows that you don't care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SOPA
I know of no business that can succeed outside of a monopoly without giving their customers what they want.
No one is arguing that a business doesn't get to decide the terms under which they will sell their goods.
However, they don't get to decide which set of terms will make them the most money, their customers do. (Unless you have a monopoly over something, then you can dictate whatever terms you want.)
The Internet is doing an end-run around the copyright monopoly. So, which should we keep, the Internet or copyrights? Thankfully, it's not an all or nothing choice. We can adjust one or both so that they can exist together more harmoniously.
Do we adjust the Internet only or is it more reasonably to adjust copyright as well? Seems to me that all the adjustment up to this point has all been on the Internet side of the equation (DMCA, etc.)
It's time for copyright to make some concessions as well. Perhaps we should repeal some copyright laws. Then, there's no need to enforce as much. Maybe reduce copyright terms? Further limit the things that can be copyrighted? Outlaw the concept of perpetual royalties? Just brainstorming here. There are a lot of dials that could be adjusted.
It's time "the Internet" started writing some bills of it's own methinks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SOPA
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL, but feel free to right click and save as...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA
Also, contrary to the belief of your previous employers and their ilk, stealing is not, and has never been, equal to copyright infringement in the US. There is an economic loss guaranteed in theft, as you lose the physical good. You copy the file in current forms of infringement. By all means, clamp down on those selling counterfeit DVDs and suchlike. That is not the problem.
That major problem is, has and will be for the foreseeable future, that SOPA does very little to actually address what is completely and utterly a business model issue - here's a Protip: NEVER TREAT YOUR CUSTOMERS LIKE CRIMINALS!/u> It only serves to annoy people (see, for example, "UNSKIPPABLE ANTI-PIRACY AD OF DOOOOOOOOOOOOM!" on DVDs) and piss off legitimate customers when things don't work (see, for example, Ubisoft's Game Launcher that didn't work for certain games for months from launch).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA
Actually, it's copyright infringement.
You can't "steal sales". "Stealing" is meaningless when you use it for everything you disagree with.
Steal a kiss? Steal an idea? Steal a base! We should make a law to outlaw baseball.
Copying is not Theft
www.youtube.com/watch?v=djVaJN0f0VQ
If I play a song that you wrote, am I "STEALING YOUR SONG?"
If I read a book aloud, am I STEALING THE WORDS?
If I teach my children how to build a birdbath, am I stealing birdbaths?
Being a politician is stealing, plain and simple. (plain and simple are mighty words that are often used to describe something that isn't plain nor simple... basically the equivalent of "it is because I say so, shut up!")
Think analog. You wouldn't run a red light, so why are you looking at internet porn!
Think analog. You wouldn't kick a puppy, so why do you play videogames!
Think analog. You wouldn't burn a building down, so why do you flame in internet forums!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA
Everyone figured out that "think analog" means "think horrible real-world analogy where whatever it is you're doing with your computer means crime".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA
[M]y response was "Think analog" not as in analog policy vs digital policy but think of the real world we live in and the ethical issues we face every day.
In the real world, the RIAA has screwed over numerous artists with its favor-the-label accounting practices and copyright trickery (especially in regards to sampling), sued its own customers for daring to not go through a paywall to experience new music, and attempted to prevent MP3 players from becoming popular before they were popular. How's that for some real world ethics, hmm?
I have pirated music. I'm not afraid to admit it right to your face. But regardless of what you and the RIAA cronies might say about pirates to Congress or the Supreme Court or any other political forum, I don't do it to slight artists or "stick it to the man" -- I do it because I want to experience new music, and up until the proliferation of iTunes and Creative Commons-licensed music, I wasn't able to do so in a easy and timely manner. Napster -- the first P2P network I ever used -- made it easy for me to find new music (and old music), including obscure works by artists that the RIAA either passed over or forgot existed. I still pirate music from Japan on an irregular basis because, excluding buying said music from super-expensive CD importers, there is no legal method of obtaining this music in the United States.
If you want to talk about ethics, let me know what kind of ethics make the RIAA want to continually push copyright forward into infinity and make it harder for people to legally purchase/support musicians from around the world.
I don't think that gives me the right to take any of their clothes without paying just because I am an unhappy customer.
Simple question: when I pirate a song from SoulSeek, what have I taken? Has the original master recording of a song disappeared from its storage place? Has the artist behind the song lost the ability to perform it? What is being stolen when I pirate a song?
Oh. Right. "Theft" is a metaphor that you and the RIAA use to conflate stealing a physical product with illegally copying a copyrighted digital file that doesn't disappear when I download it off a server or someone else's computer via P2P. That's just the ethical thing to do, though, right?
(Note that I am not condoning or supporting piracy. I know it's illegal. I just choose not to give a flying goddamn about copyright law because I believe that copyright law only serves the interests of the corporations who rely on copyright law as a way of avoiding adapting to new business models.)
Do I think that the content industry has moved way too slowly in putting their content online? Absolutely. Do I think they could have been and should be more innovative? of course. But I also know that these are huge ships turning around in creeks and however easy the answers seem to you, they are often really hard.
Gee, I can't imagine how it got that way. It couldn't have anything to do with the RIAA bogging the waters with copyright law, bad accounting, and not giving a damn about artists' rights -- right?
[T]here is also stealing. Pure old simple unethical stealing.
Yeah, I bet that the RIAA can't stand it when technology steals the opportunity to set up a new walled garden for music.
To the writer or songwriter who makes their money on SALES, it is stealing. (Even if they might be thinking about making their money another way.)
"I was telling kids, 'Download it illegally, I don't care. I want you to hear my music so I can play live.'" ~ Kid Rock (an artist contracted by an RIAA label, last I checked)
I have no patience for big companies like Google who not only throw huge sums of money out there buying professors and economists and think tanks to kill any effort at copyright protection, they make a fortune on search advertising for those same illegal products.
Technology companies like Google should just be good little bitches and get back in the RIAA's kitchen, right? They should just lie back and take having their technology and their innovations stifled and legislated out of existence by politicians who are bought and paid for by the RIAA and the MPAA and other big media companies, right?
This sounds like more of those RIAA "ethics".
I have no patience for the finger pointing and nastiness of the so called tech fans in this debate.
We have no patience for people who support legislation that will fundamentally alter the foundation of a global communications network to protect a few legacy business models that said businesses can't (and won't) fix without being forced into it.
We have no patience for people who support the most heinous attack on the First Amendment in years just because they want us to "think of the artists" (the same artists that the RIAA has metaphorically bent over a chair).
We have no patience for people who don't want to see the future. We have no patience for people who want to revert technology back to the past. We have no patience for people who have no idea what the hell they're doing.
We have no patience for the RIAA. We have no patience for the MPAA. We have no patience for their lobbyists and their paid-for political representatives.
We have no patience for you and your kind.
The world has changed. The Internet has changed it. If the RIAA and the MPAA and the other big media corporations refuse to change with the rest of the world, then I believe that they should start digging corporate graves for each other.
We have the power to communicate, to share, to enable new experiences and come together as a society thanks to the Internet -- and the RIAA wants to destroy how the Internet works just to make sure Lady Gaga's next single doesn't get downloaded by even a single person?
You might want to rethink your "ethics", Miss Rosen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA
The copying of a song and posting it somewhere is not a digital analog for the physical shoplifting of a shirt from the GAP cause you're pissed the one you wanted isn't there.
In the case of your illustration there is one less shirt, a physical entity, at the GAP. In the case of a digital copy of a song on the internet the original still exists and can still be sold, which it most often is and copies of that are sold repeatedly by members of the Industry group you formerly headed at a tiny fraction of the cost of pressing an extra copy in the world before the mp3. (Sonic cesspools that they are notwithstanding.)
My biggest problem with the playing of the artist card by the RIAA and MPAA is that they both have a track record of moving heaven and earth not to pay the artists they now claim to want to protect. Enough do to maintain the fiction that one can make even a lower middle class existence as an actor, writer or member of a band but that doesn't change the reality of what has frequently been called "creative accounting" by the RIAA, MPAA publishers and others who employ artists. I'm not asking you to defend such practices nor wanting to start an argument about it but let's be honest here and state that the RIAA and MPAA and publishers are interested only in their own existence and the artists themselves are not part of the equation. The only job a privately owned company has is to make a profit which is then shared with its shareholders. I doubt there's many artists as shareholders in member companies of the RIAA, for example.
So if I take the liberty of rephrasing "To the recording company who who makes their money on SALES, it is stealing." I would have more sympathy with the statement though I'd then want look into whether or not digital copies are actually depressing sales or increasing them in the long run. I strongly suspect the latter. That, though is a discussion for another time.
The matter at hand is SOPA and proposed laws like it are an over reaction to a still rapidly changing marketplace or not. Not too surprisingly for me, they are an over reaction. Not only that but they amount to protectionist legislation interested only in protecting the members of the group you used to head, for example, than the artists the group claims to represent. These laws are being put in place to protect the profits of the likes of Universal or EMI and not the income of artists. Some or maybe a lot of us see through the smokescreen.
The only thing that the member companies of the RIAA can be legally concerned with is making a profit for their shareholders being publicly traded. It's those profits the RIAA is attempting to protect not artists or musicians.
I would hope that the large ships of the entertainment industry weren't attempting to navigate in a stream though it would go a long way to explaining the staleness of product coming out the pipe to consumers long before piracy became an issue. It may, as well, explain the RIAA member companies inability to adapt to changing technologies and methods of communications.
As for Google, at least they understand that should SOPA pass that in the long run it's pointless. Just as it was pointless for opponents to free speech and other changes wrought by the printing press were pointless as governments attempted to control them by criminalizing a number of activities associated with them.
All messing with DNS does, for example, is mess with a "direction sign" on the internet which is something easily overcome and all, in the long run, telling payment agencies not to deal with something does is cost them money both in the short and long runs.
Bills whose collateral damage includes censorship by design or accident do nothing to bring "tech fans" or the public onside with ever tightening copyright laws. Taking these laws far beyond their original intent won't do anything other than broaden and stiffen resistance to them far beyond the "tech fan" group and well into the public realm as the laws as represented by SOPA bring things like the administration of justice into disrepute and respect for it reduced. It was tried with the printing press and it failed. It will fail here for much the same reason.
The people that will pay the price are employess and shareholders of member companies of the RIAA and MPAA and, should the rejection be strong enough THEN we'll be forced to start again with copyright so that the artists do, actually get paid. I don't want that to happen but I'm historian enough to see the wave coming on shore again because people forget history's lessons.
By the way I am a writer and I do like to get paid for my work from time to time. But this is the wrong way for me to get my cheque because that cheque probably won't ever come. It does now.
One cannot "steal" a lost sale, incidentally. There are plenty of songs that don't sell for reasons far beyond piracy and plenty of books, poetry and other written works that aren't ever sold for reasons far beyond piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA
Thanks for replying.
The vast majority of these people are gigantic douchebags with no ethics whatsoever, so they most certainly did not deserve your grace.
cheers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SOPA
So they most certainly did not give a damn about her grace.
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SOPA
"these people are gigantic douchebags with no ethics whatsoever"
Sadly, morons like you are undermining her. My ethics are that I want the major label rip-offs to cease, and that new models are utilised that use modern technology for the benefit of consumers and artists alike. Apparently, my "lack of ethics" is that that I understand that the business model that worked in 1996 is no longer viable and I'm not willing to destroy the future to protect short-term profits for a failing business. Sadly, you people are unwilling to even entertain the idea that people can have an honest opinion that doesn't agree with you paid shills. Sad, but I'm here whenever you want an adult debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SOPA
Taking something without permission is a douchebag move.
Sorry your parents raised you so poorly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA
Sorry your parents raised you so poorly."
You're right, taking something without permission is a do*chebag move, as you not so eloquently put it. HOWEVER, MAKING A COPY OF SOMETHING AND LEAVE THE ORIGINAL BEHIND, THUS NOT TAKING IT, IS NOT A DO*CHEBAG MOVE, AND PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE AND OKAY TO THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA
Sorry your parents didn't teach you basic reading comprehension and the ability to distinguish between actual theft of something and making a copy of something and not stealing. There's a world of difference. One the courts and most people with no bias have acknowledged and accepted.
Perhaps you should do the same.
I love how you debate points properly though. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA
Taking something without permission is a douchebag move.
Sorry your parents raised you so poorly."
Your mommy dresses you funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA
Bullshit. It's another one of those reality distortion fields you and your ilk keep living in because you just can't stand reality (and of course you are jealous as hell that Google found a way to make money on the internet).
Google has no obligation to proactively monitor other people's content, there is NO reason why they should do your job and be a copyright cop. They search alogrithms which naturally also find stuff deemed illegal by some. Why should they have to employ people to try to test what actually is? Because you say so?
And make no mistake, even without Google News, Google Books, etc. they would still be insanely profitable just because they're doing a good job at search. Curiously enough you don't see any of those rightsholders complain about all the free traffic they receive from Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA
Thank you very much for actually responding to the post. Most people don't. You should be commended.
Having said that, I vehemently disagree with a number of your statements.
And so my response was "Think analog" not as in analog policy vs digital policy but think of the real world we live in and the ethical issues we face every day.
Indeed. And the fact is, the "ethical issue" you face right now, is whether to allow people to share their enthusiasm about music.
The Internet is a tool that is designed to facilitate person-to-person communication. It literally has no other purpose. None. Now consider what "communication" means.
If a person likes an album by an artist, it is far easier to simply share the music, than it is to communicate in some other manner (writing a review, or even saying "hey, check these guys out"). Copyright infringement is the same as communication.
Given that, how do you think that stifling communication is an "ethical issue"? If anything, wouldn't you be on the wrong side of that ethical issue?
But I don't think that gives me the right to take any of their clothes without paying just because I am an unhappy customer.
Well, luckily, that is not what anyone does. They simply create THEIR OWN CLOTHES without paying the Gap.
Incidentally, it's rather ironic that you bring up clothing - because fashion design is not covered by copyright. Those clothes at the Gap, that you don't want to buy? If they had been covered by copyright, they would be illegal to manufacture. You would not be able to buy them at all. And stores like the Gap would not hav ever existed in the first place.
BUT, there is also stealing. Pure old simple unethical stealing. Call it whatever you want - the march of technology - the inevitable cost of innovation, etc. To the writer or songwriter who makes their money on SALES, it is stealing.
Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you: copyright infringement is not stealing.
And you should be glad of this fact... because copyright infringement is punished far, far harsher than theft ever was. Steal 23 CD's? You'll get maybe a small fine, and a slap on the wrist. Share 23 CD's through Napster? You'll face jail time, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.
Here's the message that sends to the youth of today: If you want to steal something, simply walk into a record store and take it. Because if you do exactly the same thing on the Internet, you'll be hunted down by the FBI and ICE. It's much better to just steal something, than it is to download the same thing from The Pirate Bay.
I have no patience for big companies like Google who not only throw huge sums of money out there buying professors and economists and think tanks to kill any effort at copyright protection, they make a fortune on search advertising for those same illegal products.
Here, we see how much you are, truly, full of shit.
Google does not, and has never, "made a fortune on search advertising for illegal products." Most pirate sites use ad agencies other than AdSense; and whatever money Google might have made from those sites, is pure peanuts compared to their overall AdSense revenue. Combine this with the fact that Google has voluntarily cut off sites it thinks is infringing (and wrongfully so, in many cases), and you're totally and completely full of shit.
And it's also a total lie that Google (or anyone else) has "throw[n] huge sums of money out there buying professors and ecomonists." The professors and economists who have come out against SOPA and PROTECT IP have received no money whatsoever from Google to write those opinions.
Compare that to someone like Floyd Abrams, who wrote his "analysis" of the First Amendment concerns of this bill at the request of the RIAA and MPAA, who were (and are) his clients.
In fact, those who are advocating SOPA and PROTECT IP have outspent their opponents by 10-13x. Yes, that means that for every $1000-1300 spent by you, your opponents have spent $100. And we're still winning the battle, because nobody likes these bills, except for your former clients, and not even all of them are on board.
Now, I realize that you might not take me seriously, but you should. After all, I am a musician, who earnes some cash (though not a living) from music sales. If even I can see that you're totally and completely full of shit, what message does that send to all the other artists out there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA
My point was that I can be pissed that the GAP doesn't have an outfit that is as stylish or fit as well as I want. And I can think that they arent serving their customer when they give me ugly clothes that dont fit well. ie: their busiess model sucks. But I don't think that gives me the right to take any of their clothes without paying just because I am an unhappy customer. That was my ONLY point.
As others have pointed out, this does not clear things up, and only makes the issue more muddled for a variety of reasons.
1. Nowhere in my post did I say that not offering something justified breaking the law to get it. Reading that into what I wrote just doesn't make any sense.
2. No one's talking about taking something away from a legitimate seller. They're talking about making a copy. Multiple people here have already explained the difference. After so many ears in this battle, I can't believe you still don't understand the difference.
3. If the business models enabled via all this makes the artists' better off in the long run, is there really a moral question?
4. People aren't "pirating" because they're "unhappy customers." They're pirating because they're underserved customers so they go to look for the same product elsewhere. If I don't like the pizza at the corner shop, and I go and eat at the competitor across the street, have a "robbed" the corner pizza shop? Based on your reasoning, I have. That's ludicrous.
But I also know that these are huge ships turning around in creeks and however easy the answers seem to you , they are often really hard.
No doubt. But these industries have had over a dozen years and *their only choice* is to adapt or drown. I recognize that it's difficult in practice, but if you don't turn it around, you drown. At some point, you would think that you and your friends would STOP BLAMING THE PEOPLE SHOWING YOU HOW TO TURN THE BOAT AROUND and would start listening as we guide you into making that difficult turn.
BUT, there is also stealing.
There is infringement. Which is illegal -- we agree. But it's not stealing. Using that language does not help. It's like arguing that you won't use the ropes we're throwing you to help turn the boat around, because it's made of a fabric you don't like. Closing off your best option to turn the boat around because you have a preconceived notion that something is "bad" is not a way to adapt.
Pure old simple unethical stealing.
Except that it's not.
To the writer or songwriter who makes their money on SALES, it is stealing.
No. It is not. It's a changing marketplace. And those who have adapted are doing better than ever. That certainly suggests that it's not stealing at all. It's a marketplace challenge. Some are adapting. Some are failing. Blaming the failure on "stealing" when there's proof all around that others have adapted seems pretty pointless.
And while I love the dialog by for and about consumers and fans on these issues, I have no patience for big companies like Google who not only throw huge sums of money out there buying professors and economists and think tanks to kill any effort at copyright protection, they make a fortune on search advertising for those same illegal products.
Not this myth again. The RIAA/MPAA folks always attack Google, but this is barely a Google issue. And, honestly, pulling out the "buying off" people claim is pretty ridiculous for the RIAA and MPAA who have a LONG history of doing much more than Google has ever done.
Many of the people protesting these bills have no connection to Google whatsoever.
And as for "the fortune," that's a joke. Look: Google Adsense doesn't generate much revenue at all -- especially among "pirates." These people are not clicking on Google ads (trust me, many read this site, and we make bupkis from Google ads -- you and I could sit down for a nice dinner with my last month's Google check and we'd still have to top it off with some cash from our own wallets). Google only makes money when people click. And people aren't clicking on ads on pirate sites.
I don't know why the RIAA/MPAA's of the world continue to believe this myth, but they do. It just shows how little they understand of how the internet works, or how Google works.
But I have no patience for the finger pointing and nastiness of the so called tech fans in this debate.
The fingerpointing has been almost entirely in one direction. ANd it's all at Google. And it makes no sense if you actually understand what's going on. Best I can figure, a bunch of folks in the entertainment industry are jealous that Google is successful, upset about their own failures, and through the magic of correlation, they assume that Google somehow "took their money." This is laughable if you understand how these things work.
You should know better than to go down that road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SOPA
Mike Masnick inappropriately hits on Heather Rosen!! News at 11!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA
PLEASE write out 1,000,000 times:
Infringement is not theft......
Your assignment (even though you won't accept it) is to actually learn the meaning of the words theft (to remove property so that the owner no longer has it) and infringement (the improper use of a patent, writing, graphic or trademark without permission, without notice, and especially without contracting for payment of a royalty).
So, stealing ugly clothes you don't like removes the property from the rightful owner. Copying an MP3 file does not remove possession of work from the rightful owner.
It is impossible to solve a problem if you can't even use the correct words to define the problem. No one will understand or care about the problem if you keep saying "Run a Green Light" when the actual statement of the problem is "Run a Red Light". Using the wrong words to frame the problem (especially with a very bad analogy) will not help to move towards a solution.
Now start writing out your punishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think Box Of Chocolates
If I buy a box of chocolates, do I just own the box, or do I own the chocolates as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I believe it would be more accurate if you had said "Infrigement is a problem that content producers bring upon themselves."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No. That wouldn't be accurate. The problem comes in the form of a market change. They don't bring it upon themselves. But they do have the power to make it worse (or better) and many seem to choose to make it worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Poor word choice, but I understand what he means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
besides the improper english in the tweet..
Shop me your business plan.
Show me a movie worth seeing on a BIG screen, without a preview. NOT a short of the best scenes, and MOST of the movie.
Show me a movie worth $10-20 for 2 hours of CRAP..IF I wait, I can buy the movie AFTER you find it sucks, for $5-10 in the DVD bin.
Show me a DECENT game, not CUTS from a movie or the intro..
Show me a game I can PAY $50-70 for, and play and enjoy for more then a few days.
I HAVE forked over good money to play online games..
Iv QUIT, online games, for changing something that made the game into CRAP.
HOW do you save money? how do I stop all the companies taking my MONEY away. Items designed to BREAK..Computers in your Stove/frig/washer/dryer..everything.. a $0.05 resister insted of the $0.15 one that lasts forever..
Im no long Penny'd to death, ITS DOLLARS NOW... I dont need pockets any more..I AINT got no money..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THINKING like a log = anal-log thinking
Fact: Driving too fast is dangerous for children.
Fact: Drug dealers sometimes use cars and drive too fast.
Fact: Drug dealers are bad.
Solution: Allow any random Mom (or Dad) to call the police to “report” the “fact” that he believes his neighbor was speeding.
Remedy: Allow the police to seize the neighbor’s car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thinking analog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The RIAA's 10 commandments (new vs original)
RIAA: 'You shall have no other content creators before Me.'
TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
RIAA: 'You shall not make your own content in case it's similar to ours, or is better than ours and results in a lost sale'
THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
RIAA: 'Don't pass off your stuff as our stuff'
FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
RIAA: 'Go to the theatre on Sundays. Corn farmers need income'
FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
RIAA: 'Take them to the theatre too. We need to inflate the box office figures'
SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
RIAA: 'We're saving that tactic for when SOPA fails'
SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
RIAA: 'It's our job to fuck people'
EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
RIAA: 'You shall not steal our infinite digital content'
NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
RIAA: 'Don't blame your neighbour for downloading movies on your open WiFi connection'
TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
RIAA: 'Don't borrow any of your neighbours DVDs, BluRays, MP3s or CDs. Don't watch his TV through his window or listen to him humming the latest song he heard on the radio. That represents a lost sale'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And your reply on Twitter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I WANT
Theft
Piracy
sharing
Ownership
Piracy, in MOSt of their meaning is Theft and resale/profit.
Theft, would be just getting the program, and using it yourself.
Sharing, demands ownership. but, if its stolen, can you really OWN it?
OF all the problems in the market. Availability, accessibility, sampling...selection of WHAT a person wants and likes.
Even going to the Big BOX stores. ISNT helping them. The Stores cant keep a LARGE selection onhand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank god you don't post so much anymore, Rosen.
The policies of you and your "compatriots" ruined your own industry more than any pirate ever could. You wrecked your own reputation with a ridiculously binary analogy and somehow believe it absolves you of all the damage you did.
No, seriously, thank you for not caring. Because when you and your compatriots care, lives get destroyed.
Just like your lovechild SOPA did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]