David Lowery Wants A Pony

from the the-rest-of-us-live-in-reality dept

Tue, Jun 19th 2012 2:10pm — Mike Masnick

I'm kind of amazed at how many people have been sending over, tweeting or submitting David Lowery's "Letter to Emily White at NPR All Songs Considered." Everyone seems to think there's something worth commenting on there, but I can't find it, frankly. Lowery, as we've discussed before, has some nonsensical ideas about the strawman he thinks is "the new music business model" which is somehow worse than "the old music business model." He's both right and wrong. It's "worse" for some people and better for others, but there's one thing that's not debatable: it's not going away.

His letter to Emily is both right and wrong. He exaggerates what Emily actually said, and paints her as some massive pirate, despite the fact that she doesn't use file sharing networks and the gist of her blog post at NPR was basically that she and her generation just don't see the point of "owning" music any more since it's so widely available. Access, not ownership, as they say. But to Lowery, that appears to be a huge sin, because the way a few musicians made money in the past was to sell music, and thus, forever must it be the same.

Toss in some righteous indignation that some tech companies have figured out ways to provide useful services that people want to buy, a confusion over correlation and causation... and suddenly Lowery claims to have made a "moral" argument that we should all go back to paying for music in a world where many people don't see how that makes sense.

Yes, and I'd like a pony too.

Look, I spend an inordinate amount of time looking at new business models for content, because I think it's important to support culture. But my focus is on what's working in today's market, not pining for the way things used to be. As Bob Lefsetz eloquently said in response to Lowery:

While we’re at it, why don’t we save the printers’ jobs too. And bring back Smith-Corona. That company had employees…

I believe artists should be paid. But that does not mean they should be paid the same way they used to be

There are amazing new business models that work. What doesn't work is sitting around and pining for the old days or lecturing people on a "morality" that they clearly don't agree with (and its even worse when you try to make them guilty for using services they find useful). That's just not a workable strategy. Again, to Lefsetz:

To be fighting file-sharing is akin to protesting dot matrix printers. File-trading is on its way out. Because it takes too much time to do it. And you don’t fight piracy with laws, but economic solutions. It doesn’t pay to steal if you can listen instantly on Spotify and its ilk.

And please stop bitching about the low payouts… That’s like saying Apple should liquidate and give the proceeds back to its stockholders, which is what Michael Dell so famously said in the nineties. Spotify is a trojan horse. You get hooked, and then you pay for higher quality on your mobile. Facebook stock gets hammered because of its inadequate mobile strategy and you’re not smart enough to see the connection to music??? You can’t get Spotify and its brethren on your handset without paying. And you will. Because you like the convenience of having all your music at your fingertips all the time.

The complaints of low Spotify payouts are a mirage. Go talk to Jeff Price, a guy who knows this stuff better than just about anyone, and let him explain just how the streaming world is developing. There's a huge and growing opportunity here, and people who look at the snapshot view rather than the trends are missing the big picture. The innovator's dilemma teaches us that the old guard always mocks the new players for being too small or not paying enough. But they miss the trendlines for the snapshot. And when the trendlines converge, they get run over.

David Lowery can ask for a pony all he wants, but it doesn't change the reality. Let's focus on the reality of the models that are working and the opportunities to enable more great new things. Lefsetz points out that we should focus on making great music and the other things will start to sort themselves out. Price points out that if we focus on enabling more useful services (the kind that Lowery dumps on) there's a ton of money to be made (more than ever before). There's a world of opportunity there, but David Lowery wants a pony and wants to make a moral example out of a young music lover who just wants to listen to music.

David Lowery wants his pony, sees a tide to hold back, and plenty of windmills to tilt at, but the rest of us prefer to live in the real world.

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: bob lefsetz, david lowery, emily white, file sharing
Companies: spotify

352 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

silverscarcat (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 2:13pm

If he wants a pony...
Go watch The Hub...

After all, I'm sure Rainbow Dash would like to be his friend.

...

What?

My Little Pony, Friendship is Magic is a pretty decent show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 2:19pm
  
  Re: If he wants a pony...
  In fact, he can even sample an episode for free on their website. Because they get it and he doesn't. And once he becomes a brony and has a room full of precious, precious scarce goods, he can look back on this incident and reflect.
  
  http://www.hasbro.com/mylittlepony/en_US/media/browse.cfm?type=videos
  
  And then he'll say something retarded, I'm sure.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 10:04pm
    
    resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
    http://digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120619lowery
    
    "I'm not sure I've experienced anything quite like this.
    
    Because David Lowery didn't just touch a nerve this week, he may have single-handedly crushed years of post-physical, ridiculous digital utopianism. In one crystallizing, cross-generational and unbelievably viral rant.
    
    And after a decade of drunken digitalia, this is the hangover that finally throbs, is finally faced with Monday morning, finally stares in the mirror and admits there's a problem. And condenses everything into a detailed 'moment of clarity'..."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 11:39pm
      
      Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
      I don't see what this has to do with us, and I especially don't see why this has somehow become our responsibility, but I'm going to debunk you on the most stupid of points.
      
      No, artists can't simply tour and sell t-shirts.
      
      Which is what this site has been continuously saying, especially for the latter. Simply selling T-shirts is extremely useless.
      
      Younger people mostly do not buy music; they do buy hardware and access.
      
      Because we have different options for entertainment, and hardware is more likely to be multi-purpose? Personally, I purchased Linkin Park's first two albums, and still continue to listen to those. I'm not fond of their later work. Have I stolen from them?
      
      But older people file-trade, they stream, they steal and they buy less than before.
      
      So which is it, then? You maximists are frequently insistent that everything boils down to the present generation of youngsters being a part of some Internet conspiracy and wrecking the industry. But I'll tell you this: old people don't have a lot of time and, while they may not have a clear stand on piracy, they're also easily peeved at things that don't make sense like 3DS games getting region locks.
      
      It's not file-trading, but the payouts on Spotify, Pandora, Turntable.fm, or whatever else are shockingly low.
      
      So you admit that filesharing has never been the problem.
      
      If you have an iTunes collection of more than a few thousand songs, you've almost certainly swapped, torrented, or swapped hard drives in your life. And almost everyone has a collection of a few thousand songs.
      
      This is absolutely fucking stupid. Why are all the IP maximists insistent that everyone magically acquired and currently has a massive library of songs? Do you really think that everyone's entertainment options revolve around the Top 40 hits of the last decade?
      
      Mass-marketed, 'lottery winner' style successes will continue.
      
      As in, whether you are a success depends whether people like you or not? Gee, that sounds familiar - oh, right, it's because that's how life works in general.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Phil, 20 Jun 2012 @ 8:15am
        
        Re: Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
        What a bunch of red herrings and tangents. Downloading music and listening to it without paying the artist who created it is UNETHICAL. Only a sociopath would argue with this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 8:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
        Downloading music and listening to it without paying the artist who created it is UNETHICAL. Only a sociopath would argue with this.
        
        Um, what?
        
        I get free music every day - completely legal free music that the artist is giving away. There are thousands of free albums out there, and tonnes of musicians who make their stuff available for free.
        
        Your repeated conflation of "free" with "illegal" is very telling, and very disturbing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 8:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
        Don't argue with him Leigh, his reality distortion field has been switched to 11.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2012 @ 9:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
        "I get free music every day - completely legal free music that the artist is giving away. "
        
        Fantastic you have no excuse than for stealing from and exploiting those who are not giving it to you than.
        
        Lowery put light on this, and alot of artists are responding as the message resonates not from his words but from the truth of their own experience in their own pocketbooks. If there were in fact a new middle class of professional musicians, and your half-baked nonsensical ideas actually had any merit than musicians would respect you.
        
        http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/why-arent-more-musicians-working-professionally/
        
        But, after a decade of half-baked ideas, poorly thought out business plans, and outright lies artists no know that you are only working to line the pockets of those who exploit like your kind have done repeatedly in the past at record labels, publishing companies, etc. You Leigh are the new RIAA, you are the MAN sticking it to artists and promoting their exploitation so that companies like the pirate bay and others can profit illegally off the work of artists.
        
        You and others here can skoff at this post. You can name call and drag out your usual strawmen, but the response to Lowery's post was a Phenom this week, and Oatmeal was a Phenom last week... It might be time for you guys to take a long hard look in the mirror and realize that you are worse than the MAFIAA that you claim to despise.
        
        I would expect nothing less than the usual responses from this post, but all I can say is... the tide is starting to turn and as we've seen in the last two week a little bit of light goes a long way in the darkness... get hip.
        
        http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/artists-know-thy-enemy/
        
        Resnikoff got it right, as did the LA Times.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 10:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
        Oh please. Do you really think that Lowery gets anything right? If so, you have been thoroughly brainwashed.
        
        Here's a direct quote from Lowery's extensive "old boss new boss" ramblings (emphasis mine):
        
        This is what people do not understand. When they look at the royalties that the record labels paid artists it doesn�t seem like a lot. It seems unfair. Until you consider the guaranteed advances. Let�s say the artist was to be paid a lowly 12% royalty by contract. That compares unfavorably to the 61% of revenue that the independent artist gets from iTunes. But the artist is always given an advance and usually the advance assumes moderate success. But 9 of those 10 bands did not achieve great success even moderate success. It was never expected that all 10 would be successful. So the result was that the record label artist actually received a lot more than that contractual 12%. The unsuccessful artist may have received an advance that was equal to 90% of the gross revenue generated by that recording. And most artists were unsuccessful. So your average record label artist was actually receiving way more than 12%. The artist royalty rate is actually the floor. It�s the minimum share of revenue the artist will receive.
        
        (I know this is probably really confusing to you civilians. Am I really saying it�s better to be un-recouped as an artist? Yes it is. Quantitative finance geeks will see this as selling a series of juicy �covered calls�. Being un-recouped means you took in more money than you were due by contract. You took in more money than your sales warranted. And there was a sweet spot, being un-recouped but not too un-recouped. For instance I estimate that over my 15 year career at Virgin/EMi we took in advances and royalties equivalent to about 40% of our gross sales. In other words we had an effective royalty rate of 40%, despite the fact that by contract our rate was much lower).
        
        Yes. He just explicitly argued that it's better to be a crappy, unpopular band that sells no albums because apparently all he cares about is scamming the system for the maximum possible percentage of sales. Indeed, by his logic, if you got a $1 advance and sold zero albums, you'd be doing great: after all, you just got an infinity per cent portion of sales!
        
        This is the guy you are looking to for insight into the industry? The guy who thinks that bands shouldn't care about having fans - they should just care about getting a good advance then not even worry if anyone likes their album? That they should declare victory if they only sell a handful of copies, just because they got some cash upfront? Those are not the motivations of any musician I know, even the ones who very much want to make money with their music. Those are not the motivations of any musician I care to listen to, either.
        
        No wonder Lowery can't understand or compete in the new landscape - he doesn't even think bands should have to be good, or that anyone should want to listen to them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 9:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
        Yes. He just explicitly argued that it's better to be a crappy, unpopular band that sells no albums because apparently all he cares about is scamming the system for the maximum possible percentage of sales
        
        Wow, you can't even bother to take things out of context? He doesn't say it's better to be "crappy," he says it's 'better' to be unrecouped from a financial investment standpoint. From the perspective of Wall Street and those in Silicon Valley. YOU guys here are the ones who are always droning on about how music is fungible, without realizing that that is a direct dismissal of the true value of music to an audience. It's not even a subtle point to grasp. Of course, if you've never made any money at art...
        
        The guy who thinks that bands shouldn't care about having fans - they should just care about getting a good advance then not even worry if anyone likes their album?
        
        That's an incredibly gross mis-characterization. First of all, no one gets an advance without already having fans unless they are a complete corporately fabricated entity (and in those cases, there's no advance, it's all the conglomerate's money). Obviously, the majority of musicians are not corporate fabrications, so it's a given that they'll have a fanbase before they're signed. Labels don't even look at bands that have no fans. But then again, if you've never actually had any success as an artist...
        
        That they should declare victory if they only sell a handful of copies, just because they got some cash upfront?
        
        Strawmen. No one ever said that. And you're quite vociferous about it. Almost foaming...
        
        Pointing out the math is not a roadmap to "victory." Just a look at the numbers.
        
        Those are not the motivations of any musician I know, even the ones who very much want to make money with their music. Those are not the motivations of any musician I care to listen to, either
        
        Obviously. And as I mentioned, NO ONE is arguing that point.
        
        But I'll bite: WHO are these musicians you know who very much want to make money? Do you know, personally, anyone who IS making a living at music? Names please.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 10:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
        Hey, you copied portions of this post and pasted to another article on TD.
        
        I hope you know you are "stealing" from yourself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Milton Freewater, 20 Jun 2012 @ 11:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
        "I get free music every day - completely legal free music that the artist is giving away. "
        
        Fantastic you have no excuse than for stealing from and exploiting those who are not giving it to you than.
        
        David Lowery argues that people who pay for Spotify are doing what you call stealing.
        
        He implies that people who legally rip CDs are doing what you call stealing.
        
        We're not talking about Bittorrent here, or a turnign of the tide. We'rre talking about whetehr to move the line and why.
        
        The trichordist is not getting it right and they block comments of people who do. They're basically aggressive panhandlers.
        
        Here's a good response to this subject, the best I've seen. Ben Sisario read and comprehends what Emily and Lowery actually said, and he gets what's really being proposed by the trichordists. The Times is not in any way pro-piracy.
        
        http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/npr-intern-gets-an-earful-after-blog ging-about-11000-songs-almost-none-paid-for/
        
        I agree that Lowery's post is a Phenom but not in a good way. I see it as an elder statesman saying his only choice is to demand charity. It's chilling and sad, but it won't make me purchase more albums. I don't use them.
        
        Resnikoff is distracted. Here's the truth: people aren't buying albums, and that has nothing to do with Leigh, Prate Bay or anyone else in the tech world. The vast majority do in fact "do without" and love it. We don't pirate or copy or rip and we also don't buy. That's why your revenues dropped. So why are you yelling on this forum?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        dwg (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 2:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
        "The vast majority do in fact "do without" and love it. We don't pirate or copy or rip and we also don't buy."
        
        Exactly. And we stream. Who needs to own anything anymore? And it's not like I'm the one who set up Spotify's royalty rates or anything, so I kind of don't want to hear it. I suffer through the ads and that's goddamned enough.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2012 @ 8:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
        That lightbulb next to his post is UNETHICAL!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 9:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
        Downloading music and listening to it without paying the artist who created it is UNETHICAL. Only a sociopath would argue with this.
        
        Lol. Once again, ethics are subjective and personal.
        
        Once more in clear language: YOUR ETHICS ARE NOT MY ETHICS.
        
        Only an idiot with a God complex would argue that his personal ethics apply to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2012 @ 10:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
        Just curious. Would copying someone else's answers (e.g., the known A+ student) on a final exam be ethical? After all, the A+ student still has his/her answers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2012 @ 10:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
        Is cheating unethical? Is counterfeiting unethical? Is stealing someone's identity unethical, after all, they still have their identity?
        
        Is copyright infringement unethical? Hey, what is copyright anyway? And intellectual property? Is that like real property?
        
        Do non-artists have rights? Can everybody be an artist? Can everybody have copyrights? Can everybody infringe on those copyrights?
        
        They have the technology to do so. Has the Internet made us, as a species, so unethical that I don't know anymore?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 11:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
        Just curious. Would copying someone else's answers (e.g., the known A+ student) on a final exam be ethical? After all, the A+ student still has his/her answers.
        
        No. I do not feel plagiarism is ethical at all.
        
        But, that also has nothing to do with this conversation. Filesharing is not plagiarism. Once again, apples and oranges.
        
        Filesharers do not remove the artist's name and try to claim it as their own work like your example. Some smart artists have used that simple fact of filesharing to increase awareness of their works and increase their fanbase and leveraged it monetarily in other ways.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2012 @ 1:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
        What if you copy only some of the other student's answers?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 2:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
        What if you copy only some of the other student's answers?
        
        Still not ethical. Especially in a classroom situation where the object is to determine the individuals grasp of the topic at hand.
        
        In real life it's not so clear, if I was to use some of someone else's writings to expand on them, critique them, build on them, etc. to create something new, then I don't feel that to be unethical. It's how human culture works. Nothing is created in a vacuum. Everything is based on early works, whether knowingly or not.
        
        Since I feel that you are trying to set me up here - let's hear it - what you got?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2012 @ 12:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
        Would you not share food with those going hungry because it is unethical?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        dwg (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 2:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
        Yes, it would. That's passing off someone else's work as your own. Where does this article mention someone doing that, even hypothetically?
        
        Your analogy is really, really bad.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Milton Freewater, 20 Jun 2012 @ 11:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
        "Downloading music and listening to it without paying the artist who created it is UNETHICAL. Only a sociopath would argue with this."
        
        For the record, I disagree with you. Downloading copyrighted content not blocked by paywalls is the only thing my Internet browser does.
        
        But that's irrelevant here. Lowery isn't talking about downloading music or even not paying for it. He's saying paying TOO LITTLE is unethical. Read his essay.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 20 Jun 2012 @ 9:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
        "What a bunch of red herrings and tangents."
        
        Yes, that is what your comments are. No need to inform the rest of us.
        
        "Downloading music and listening to it without paying the artist who created it is UNETHICAL."
        
        Well, downloading music is illegal, but only insofar as if what is being downloaded is being done so without authorization. Because downloading music is also legal. (Or need I remind you how iTunes, Amazon and a plethora of other legal sites work?)
        
        Listening to music without paying the artist who created it is also legal. (Or should I point out how the radio works? Pandora? Spotify? Or the other sites and options that allow for someone to legally listen to music without paying for it.)
        
        In fact, with the exception of downloading copyrighted material without prior authorization, downloading music and getting music for free is perfectly legal. Because there is plenty of music out there distributed freely and free to download.
        
        My favorite band, Alkaline Trio, routinely releases new songs whenever a new album is about to be released, to download for free. They also give people who pre-order the album (like myself) access to the album about a week early in any format of my choosing, but I have to download it (no streaming available). So that's an example of downloading of music I've done, I did pay. But it's an example of how downloading music is not necessarily illegal, which is how you try and paint any/all downloading to be.
        
        Only an idiot would argue that downloading/enjoying music without paying to do so is unethical. In point of fact, the vast majority of people would consider it a non-issue. As in, it's completely ethical to do so
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2012 @ 6:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
        Hello, Phil/googlypants/hurricane head! Got any sleeping giant artist friends to vote your comments insightful?
        
        What a bunch of red herrings and tangents. Downloading music and listening to it without paying the artist who created it is UNETHICAL.
        
        You know, your comment would make sense - if I was arguing in support of downloading music and listening without paying the artist. But I'm not. I actually did you a favour and read the URL you posted, which stated the following:
        
        Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's helping musicians. It's not file-trading, but the payouts on Spotify, Pandora, Turntable.fm, or whatever else are shockingly low. It's a rounding error, towards 0.
        
        That part isn't talking about filesharing. It's claiming that because artists aren't being paid a lot (i.e. aren't being paid so they can be filthy rich like Madonna or ABBA), that everything that isn't label-supported is doomed to be a failure. (By the way, NICE support of labels you have there, Mr. I-am-not-signed-to-a-label-and-want-nothing-to-do-with-labels!)
        
        And by the way - what about "Weird Al" Yankovic's "Don't Download This Song", which has its own official site and download link? Is that unethical, hm?
        
        Seriously, though, there's no need for you guys to post under multiple pseudonyms. You regurgitate the same buzzphrases. The same blogposts. The same hit-and-run accusations that we're all thieves that can't get enough Top 40 content (DESPITE continuous declarations of our own music tastes). You chaps run a site that needs FOUR guys to run just to spam other sites with your own blogposts. Do you take shifts? Does one person man the computer at headquarters while the others run home crying to post under different snowflakes? Do you all lick each others' shoes because no one else will?
        
        And after all this, you STILL can't find any sleeping giant artist friends to vote all your comments insightful! Even though you have FOUR TIMES the manpower we thought you had! I guess you're just four times more useless than we thought you were.
        
        (Oh, and by the way? Moderation and editing and deleting of userposts before they get posted? What was that you said about hiding posts? "How very SOPA of you"!)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niall (profile), 21 Jun 2012 @ 2:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: resnikoff nails it... and you guys are bros...
        To some people having sex before marriage is unethical. To some people, drinking is unethical. Do i give a flying monkeys? No!
        
        What is seen as 'ethical' is often redefined by a new generation. Other people have to learn to deal with this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- openfreetard@exploitationeconomy.com, 19 Jun 2012 @ 2:55pm
  
  Re: If he wants a pony...
  haters gonna hate... but it's probably the most "shared" story on the net in the past twenty four hours... hell, ask mike...
  
  for a guy who "didn't have much to say about it" on twitter he suddenly has no loss of words... so much for the streisand effect...
  
  Mike Masnick ‏@mmasnick
  @MetalSamurai surprised at how many people are sending that to me (more than pretty much anything ever). not much to say about it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:12pm
    
    Re: Re: If he wants a pony...
    for a guy who "didn't have much to say about it" on twitter he suddenly has no loss of words... so much for the streisand effect...
    
    I said the same thing in the post. David, the whole post explains why there's not much to say about it. It's not a response to you, it's a response to everyone submitting it.
    
    And, um, what does any of this have to do with the Streisand Effect? Once again you don't seem to know what you're talking about. You should work on that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - openfreetard@exploitationeconomy.com, 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: If he wants a pony...
      too funny, you too man... you too...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - openfreetard@exploitationeconomy.com, 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: If he wants a pony...
        so you had to write a whole post to say, there's nothing to say? ok... too funny...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If he wants a pony...
        so you had to write a whole post to say, there's nothing to say? ok... too funny...
        
        You don't do logic very well, do you? Or English.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nick Dynice (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 7:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If he wants a pony...
        Mike, he just ran out of valid arguments so now he is taking shots at things he think will make you mad. It reminds me bratty kids on a playground.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If he wants a pony...
        So you had to write two posts to say it's too funny?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 10:11pm
        
        LA Times - Lowery "a new voice of sanity"
        http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2012/06/crackers-david-lowery-an-essential-music-and-tech -biz-critic.html
        
        "Lowery's essay, which is fairly compassionate and written in an educational spirit, returns to ethical principles of fairness and support. "
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2012 @ 1:33am
        
        Re: LA Times - Lowery "a new voice of sanity"
        Sorry, Lowery, but the four guys running your site and spamming this one with URLs don't count as sleeping giant artist friends.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Robert (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 7:58am
        
        Re: LA Times - Lowery "a new voice of sanity"
        And if you read the comments you see only one person agrees with Lowery *using Casey Kasem's voice* "and he writes... 'A thief is a thief is a thief. (You can quote me.)' "
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Watchit (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 7:00pm
    
    Re: Re: If he wants a pony...
    did you reply to the first comment with something completely unrelated to said comment, just so you'd be at the top of the feed?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Watchit (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:40pm
  
  Re: If he wants a pony...
  First commentor a brony? hell yes B)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
drew (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 2:13pm

Cue first troll in...
5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. 1..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- [citation needed or GTFO], 19 Jun 2012 @ 2:20pm
  
  Re: Cue first troll in...
  Cue David Lowery/his followers/the usual TD trolls...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - [citation needed or GTFO], 19 Jun 2012 @ 2:23pm
    
    Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
    Instead of the-rest-of-us-live-in-reality department, it should be troll bait.
    
    Because once you talk about Lowery, they'll be coming like the plague.
    
    Quick, get your "Relevance Reflectors" ready!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - openfreetard@exploitationeconomy.com, 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:38pm
    
    Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
    disagreement = troll
    
    yer funny.
    
    so it's ok to ripp off artists and pay them nothing? seems like less people are agreeing with you.
    
    heard of oatmeal... love how ya'll are backpeddling on that one...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - rubberpants, 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
      It's obvious that you're not happy with the way things are going in the industry. I'm curious as to what you think should be done about it? Do you think that file-sharing can be stopped? It's easy to sit and complain (fun too), but do you have any solutions to offer?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - openfreetard@exploitationeconomy.com, 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
        I think there are many solutions, a master rights registry might be one as proposed by ian rogers. ultimately this all probably ends in some form of rogue sites legislation - not of the sopa variety, but none the less.
        
        the viral success of david's response just illustrates the issue is not as one sided as some would like to believe and a fair solution will require both sides (gasp) working together.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
        That's the problem with you squares, you think everything has sides.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        openfreetard@exploitationeconomy.com, 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
        I'd say the same of you are you wouldn't be wasting your time here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
        How is trolling a waste of time? It's entertaining and free!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Eponymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 8:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
        But you or fine with wasting you're time hear mutilating syntax. . .
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 7:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
        Ian Rogers thinks he's the first person to think of a master rights registry as a panacea?
        
        SNOCAP: limited scope, commercial company, died in mergers
        
        WIPO International Music Registry (IMR): nothing but meetings and infighting
        
        Global Repertoire Database (GRD): no indication it's not on the same track as the IMR
        
        As one commenter said, "I've been a database guy at BMI, Sony Music, Harry Fox, emusic etc. and I would love to have access to a single database with accurate split info and everything you mention. I would also love access to a Victoria's Secret model that owns a liquor store, unfortunately I don't think either are going to happen"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2014 @ 3:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
        Just to add to the LOLs: the GRD is dead.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Eponymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 8:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
        How do you negotiate with a side that doesn't hold your interests valid (and that goes for both sides)? In the end a fair solution will be created when one side dies off from old age and the progressive side dominates the environment as those young idealists become stakeholders. This is the process by which many social obstacles are overcame.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 8:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
        You don't negotiate, pirates will bring the entertainment industry to their knees eventually, because they are the ones in control of the money flow, not the "industry" of imaginary property.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
      No, that's not what's said here at all.
      
      You need to get off your "high horse" and start thinking pragmatic. Look nat Valve, and to a lesser extent, THQ. Valve are concentrating their energies on creating a stable, viable competitior to piracy.
      
      THQ are focussing on actually making decent games. EA's Martinelli, who called out Steam's business model as "cheapening IP", has, just two weeks later, opened up a special offer plac eon Origin, cutting up to 87% off games.
      
      The only one who should be backpedalling is you, as you have no coherency to your arguments. Once you get that issue sorted, then mmaybe we can, y'know, discuss the various business models made operable by the Internet.
      
      I've said elsewhere that there are valid points that you make. However, you couch it in brain-eater terminology and are ridiculously abrasive to anyone who criticises you or your viewpoint.
      
      I'd compare you to Fox, but I know you at least have some arguments with merit.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
      Why yes it seems it is...
      Labels "stole" music in Canada and had their own laws been applied fairly the amount owed was billions, and then it got settled for millions... even that is still waiting to get paid as one label insists on suing an insurance carrier to pay for them committing "theft".
      
      How did we learn to do it? We watched the labels.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - openfreetard@exploitationeconomy.com, 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
        why is it always proposed that the solution to one injustice against artists (labels) is an even greater injustice in piracy? how do you rationalize being worse than the RIAA?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 7:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
        There's no need to argue with these clowns. Many of them are paid by Google, etc to argue for them.
        
        cuz y'know, Google needs more billions...
        
        Anyway, it's been refreshing to see the reaction to this on so many music boards; so many kids coming out and admitting they feel the same way Emily does. They see the negative effect, both economically and artistically. There's no way they can't, they're not stupid.
        
        They're not committed to being willfully blind, as Masnick and his merry band of couch pirates so obviously are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 8:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
        >posting long after others have stopped caring
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
        Lame troll is lame.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 8:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
        It's not the solution, it's the symptom. If you don't hear doctors propose that the lack of an immune system solves HIV, why would you hear us proposing that piracy solves the labels?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 10:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
        I do not see you decrying the labels theft, demanding insane amounts of compensation and these assholes made lots of money doing it. Commercial Copyright Infringement, what the laws were actually setup to stop and punish.
        
        I do not see you offering a moderate voice calling demands of $150,000 multiplied by a guesstimate of how many other people got a copy being demanded from people who just wanted to share what they liked so others could discover it ludicrous.
        
        I do not see you pointing out the idea of having people's MP3 players searched at the border and having to prove you have a license for each and every song contained within.
        
        I do not see you decrying media taxes because it COULD be used for piracy, funneling money to an industry that refuses to accept they are no longer in the business of selling plastic discs.
        
        I do not see you asking where the hell your cut of the RIAA settlement money is, they collected so much money "for the artists" and how much made it to those poor ripped off artists?
        
        I do not see you looking for words other than piracy or theft to describe something that is neither.
        
        I do not see you having a problem with wholesale spying on people to make sure that not a single bit of an MP3 moves unless your paid, and perfectly of if the costs of policing the copyrights is paid for by the people who have their privacy voided to protect music.
        
        I see you supporting a massive "industry" that decides only they know what people want, one size fits all. They treat the world like tiny little separate sections that never interact, ignoring the truth that the market is now global and the old ideas no longer work. I see you supporting locking culture away from the people who allow copyright to exist, its not a god given right it is given by the people. It is supposed to be limited and then everyone can share that culture... right now there is no hope that anything considered part of my culture will enter into the public domain where I can remix and re-imagine it to share it with a new generation.
        
        I see your scared of change, and determined to keep stomping your foot and demand the world pay attention to what you want. The world changes, and everyone adapts or they are left behind.
        
        I see you supporting the "popular" idea within the industry that we are no longer consumers, just thieves waiting to strike and rob you blind.
        
        I see you blind to the idea if you treat your customer like shit they tend to behave poorly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 6:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
      heard of oatmeal... love how ya'll are backpeddling on that one...
      
      Oatmeal? Backpedalling? Are you kidding? You haven't read anything about that case.
      
      When are you going to get your sleeping giant artist friends over here, Phil/googlypants/hurricane head? I see you brought in some new blood but they don't seem to think you're insightful!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TtfnJohn (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 7:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
      No one is saying artists shouldn't be paid. Of course you need to fit that one here even if no one has said that here. You'll read it in so I'll end that little point there.
      
      What you won't admit or recognize is that the market has changed traditional distribution companies haven't reacted except, perhaps, to cry wolf. I realize that you're married to that model and that's all well and good but you don't have a monopoly on truth. Nor does Mike, nor do I.
      
      That your thinking is flawed is shown by this little strawman (or strawperson or strawartist) you posted on your own site:
      
      "Per capita spending on music is 47% lower than it was in 1973!!"
      
      Pay close attention to the date. This was the height of the Boomers moving through the market, jobs, no kids, mortgages and all that good stuff so we had a good whack of disposable income. A great deal of that went on music be it recordings, concerts or sound systems.
      Now, pay close attention to the year this year. We Boomers are retiring en masse, a lot of us still have children at home, more of us are in debt than our parents were at the same age, something the 2008 crash didn't help. I could go on but even if you don't get my drift most will.
      
      We don't spend the money on music we did in 1973, in fact considerably less. That's for any number of reasons though the main one is that we're just not as interested in it as we were in 1973. That and we've got almost all the music we're interested in already on LP or CD. We don't attend many concerts, at least of the stadium variety, anymore either. That exit from the market alone is enough to account for almost all of that decline.
      
      One more thing. As has been widely noted the 1990s featured a barren period where CDs would be released and out of 12 songs only on or two would be worth a damn. Don't even start to tell me that isn't true. I experienced it and wasted money experiencing it. That marked my exit from the CD market. Permanently. I don't blame the artists for most of that so that leaves the recording industry. That's also the reason a great number of my peers abandoned the CD market.
      
      One more thing. Almost all of my peers have no idea where to find The Pirate Bay much less use it Wisely, considering their tech and Internet savvy, they've bought into the notion that pirated music can do horrid things to their computers. When I ask close to 100% go to iTunes or Amazon to get music from the Net.
      
      So let's admit that the Boomers are no longer anywhere near the market influence we were in 1973.
      
      While I'm saddened by the two suicides you mention to blame all of that on the decline in spending on music. As you mention they both suffered from addiction and depression as well as a corresponding decline in income. As a recovering addict/alcoholic I have to remind you that a decline in income is a consequence of addiction. Depression is a consequence of addiction. As the disease progresses that's normal. Particularly if a musician shows up at a gig stoned or drunk unable to perform, a recording session and so on. I wish with all my heart that they didn't choose suicide as the "way out" but I know that feeling and how tempting it is.
      
      Your bringing them into this discussion is cheap emotionalism and total ignorance. It does nothing at all to honour their memory or musicianship. You had nothing else to say to you reached for that to say "see, this is what happens!".
      
      Is it ok to rip off artists? No.
      
      Is it ok for an industry not to respond to changing markets? No.
      
      On the latter that path leads to the death or deep decline of the industry. And, in this case, what you call piracy. People will get the music one way or another. And until iTunes and Amazon started retailing "singles" there was no option because the industry sure didn't.
      
      What music I get I pay for. For me it's that simple unless I have the artist's permission to go ahead and download. To me it's amazing how many do even if it's just a song or two.
      
      As for a lawyer named Careon making a fool of himself that has nothing to do with the merits of his points it has everything to do with how he's behaving around the issue.
      
      Sort of like you do. Don't worry, with practice he'll get almost as good(?) at is as you are.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 7:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
        TL;DR. The response to your boldface point, though, is surely that if we weren't all stealing/freeloading, we'd be spending 47% more on music, per capita, like we did in 1973.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 8:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
        The argumentative technique of ignoring your adversary's argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Eponymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 8:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
        No, what he is pointing out, which you fail to grasp, is that maybe music isn't as valued and/or culturally important as it once was. I am a fan of music, but I probably haven't spent more then $50 towards it in the last 2 or 3 years (that's music, shows, and merch combined). This isn't because I'm pirating it either. It's because it ISN'T a priority in my life and I don't need to "own" it to experience it. Honestly I'm apathetic to musicians' importance in this world and don't feel it my burden to support those I'm not engaged with or enthusiastic about. Thus I am a part of your "problem". But for me I see this as a humbling market correction for the better where media of all forms is getting fairly priced by the market and not the cartel.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
        Because, you know, everyone has 47% more income (in a recession, no less) and experienced no shift in spending habits due to new avenues of entertainting being availabe. Heck, you totally convinced everyone!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
      seems like less people are agreeing with you.
      
      Right, so piracy is not a problem any more. What do you keep whining about then?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - [citation needed or GTFO], 19 Jun 2012 @ 11:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
      yer funny.
      
      Not as funny as your "redneck" style of atrocious grammar and spelling. There's only one "p" in "rip." "Backpeddling" is spelled with only one "d" and uses an "a" in its place. Sentences require capitalization. You're just proving how language skills are degrading over the generations because of "txt tlk" and auto-correct.
      
      But I agree with your point that it's not okay to rip off artists and pay them nothing. That's why the "less people" you refer to are escaping the major labels that don't pay what they deserve.
      
      heard of oatmeal...
      
      I personally like Quaker Instant Oatmeal: Cinnamon and Spice. It may not be good for the blood sugar, but it does keep me full longer.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JEDIDIAH, 20 Jun 2012 @ 7:14am
      
      Play it again Sam...
      ...except people aren't "ripping off artists" here.
      
      They are doing the modern equivalent of listening to the radio or watching MTV. There are plenty of bands I have enjoyed in that manner over the years without paying a dime to directly.
      
      That wasn't evil and neither is Pandora and Spotify.
      
      If you push Top 40 tripe you've always had the problem that your stuff is flooding the airwaves for free.
      
      This actually reminds me of a radio ad from the 80s complaining about this very thing. The narrator was trying to tune into radio stations and found that they were all playing the same song.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Lowestofthekeys (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 7:21am
        
        Re: Play it again Sam...
        Pandora for me has actually been integral in finding indie artists. I've bought plenty of music from independent artists who popped up on my Pandora playlist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 2:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Play it again Sam...
        Pandora was a useful tool for me to. Well, useful until the labels decided that nobody outside the borders of the US would access it... I wonder how much money they could make for the labels if they were allowed to open it up to more people rather than restricting it to a relatively saturated market?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - dwg (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 2:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Cue first troll in...
      Did I miss this "backpeddling?" Cite, please. Everything I've seen here so far is consistent.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 2:23pm

Do you really expect us to believe that we can't have ponies in real life, Mike? You can drink your ponyless Kool-Aid, I've preordered the white Princess Celestia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Audrey, 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:32pm
  
  Friendship is magic
  I believe in Bronies with Ponies because Friendship is Magic and friends don't steal from their friends, including their friend's music. And friends don't lie or manipulate by calling it "filesharing" instead of what it actually is: stealing. Unless of course, these friends are no friends at all, and actually they are insidious bullies, who in their private life of insecurity pitch misguided similes about Ponies and senseless jargon about unethical tech policy. Mike, you may actually learn a thing or two from Ponies (and their Bronies) about what it is to be a friend-- a good person. Poor Mike, all blustery hype... just like Nightmare Moon.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Torg (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:04pm
    
    Re: Friendship is magic
    Friends do still file share, though, but it's not stealing when they do it because friends don't charge friends for music. On the other hand, really good friends will get music from the Bandcamp link instead of the Mediafire one. It's a pretty lax environment overall, and that doesn't seem to be impeding its development.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lauriel (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:31pm
    
    Re: Friendship is magic
    because Friendship is Magic and friends don't steal from their friends, including their friend's music
    
    I remember way back in the '80s, before the internet and filesharing came along. My friends and I did, in fact, share a lot of music. We'd loan each other tapes and CDs. We'd use a double tape recorder to record copies of tapes and CDs. We'd record off the radio. We'd bring music over on a Sunday afternoon, or to parties, to increase the options and for all to enjoy. We never told each other "sorry, but friends don't encourage piracy, you'll have to buy your own."
    
    And friends don't lie to each other? Really? You'd be surprised how often we lie to each other. You break up with your boyfriend - what does your friend say? I'll bet they don't tell you everything you may have done wrong in the relationship, they'll just agree that the guy was a bastard, and it wasn't meant to be. Friends are friends because they do lie - they nurture our egos rather than let rip with the bald truth.
    
    If you don't want to support or justify filesharing, fine. But please don't pretend that music sharing never existed prior to 1990, or that sharing is an evil thing that has no place in society.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Watchit (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:44pm
    
    Re: Friendship is magic
    haha :D your funny! I would say only a small minority of bronies actually get the HUB, where do you think the rest of us get it?
    
    But really, is that such a bad thing? Bronies buy a lot of blind bags... a looooot of blind bags...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
BeachBumCowboy (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 2:25pm

Past
"because the way a few musicians made money in the past..."

...was to wander village to village as traveling minstrels singing folk songs to the people. And thus it must be forever the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 2:33pm
  
  Re: Past
  does this mean its acceptable to pelt them with rotten fruit when they are unpleasing?
  
  I need a case of rotten tomatoes and tix to a bieber concert stat...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - justok (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 2:57pm
    
    Re: Re: Past
    I've got some tomatoes for sale. By the way, here's a copy of my new album.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - openfreetard@exploitationeconomy.com, 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:31pm
    
    Re: Re: Past
    so that's what you think of artists?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Watchit (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 7:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Past
      only the bad ones.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 10:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Past
      Gee, I seem to have only named one in my snarky comment but I'm sure I can get another case and pelt you so you don't feel left out.
      
      Besides why don't you hate Beiber? He got famous violating peoples copyrights and posting his crimes on YouTube. He is a thief like the rest of us isn't he?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Baldaur Regis (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:38pm
  
  Re: Past
  "because the way a few musicians made money in the past..."
  ...was to wander village to village as traveling minstrels...
  Why couldn't my ancestors afford a pony? Because of these FUCKING MINSTRELS and their incessant desire to roam the countryside, monopolizing the pony supply. And when my turn came, where was my pony? IN SOME FUCKING 80'S MUSIC VIDEO. Why do musicians hate the pony-desiring public so much?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 2:30pm

According to Lowery
Lowery says:

The fundamental shift in principals and morality is about who gets to control and exploit the work of an artist. The accepted norm for hudreds of years of western civilization is the artist exclusively has the right to exploit and control his/her work for a period of time.

This is completely and totally incorrect. The accepted norm for over a hundred years of western civilization is that the artist's work is treated just like any other form of property. In a small number of cases, the author maintains control of the work; in the vast majority of cases, the work is controlled by large corporations who manage it just like they'd manage any other form of equity.

This is not new. Back in 1891, the Music Publisher's Association (created by Tin Pan Alley publishers) was lobbying to get songs classed as a manufactured good, and to get the copyright on published music extended by an additional 16 years. Sound familiar? The people who wrote those songs didn't have control of their work; the people who performed (and later recorded) those songs didn't have control of their work; in the same way, movie actors don't own rights to the films in which they've acted, and they never have.

Perhaps Lowery should stop setting up ridiculous straw men for debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Beech, 19 Jun 2012 @ 2:38pm
  
  Re: According to Lowery
  "Perhaps Lowery should stop setting up ridiculous straw men for debate."
  
  That's not a strawman, a strawman is an easily refuted argument that you pretend someone on the other side of a debate holds. This snippet is just a false/hyperbolic "fact" used to justify a totally wrong conclusion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JEDIDIAH, 20 Jun 2012 @ 7:22am
    
    Copyright is like pink slime
    > The accepted norm for hudreds of years of western civilization
    
    That is just a plain lie.
    
    It's like the meat industry saying that pink slime has been used safely for decades.
    
    Both are trying to stretch the definition of terms to their limit in order to give a false impression of the scale of what they are talking about. While pedantically true, the obvious intent is to deceive.
    
    Pink slime is a very recent invention and so is copyright.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dwg (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 2:21pm
  
  Re: According to Lowery
  How many hundreds? Because I don't think many would take exception to the statement that Shakespeare was a great playwright, but, see, Shakespeare rehashed an awful lot of others' stories.
  
  So let's see: we're not even using the "norm" here--we're using the pinnacle as an example of how this is completely wrong. Also: Milton, Homer, more.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - trollificus (profile), 23 Jun 2012 @ 7:56am
    
    Re: Re: According to Lowery
    Dear Mr. Shakespar,
    
    Plesse see the attached Notyce of Legall Actione. My barristers wyll be requiring of you (Wm. Shakspear) 100,000 pounds sterling for each production of the following entertainments:
    
    Hamlet, Richard II, Henry V,...
    
    Sygned, by God's Grace,
    Estate of Raphael Holinshed
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - dwg (profile), 24 Jun 2012 @ 10:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re: According to Lowery
      Wouldst thou accepte my second-best bed?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 2:33pm

perhaps asking Lowery the questions 'how far back in time do you want to go? how many discoveries, inventions and innovations do you want to stop or to never have happened, simply to be able to continue your illusion of bygone days? be careful because you may find that what you think is the only way for things to be, may well not happen if something else didn't happen before it.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
feelbetternow (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 2:47pm

Ponies owning ponies...ponies RIDING ponies
My main takeaway from Lowery's letter is that he's mad about what he perceives as a sense of entitlement by some music consumers (especially younger ones), as if they feel illegally downloading media and not paying for it, ever, is their right. I know that there are people like that out there, but I don't think they're the rule, I think they are the exception.

And people who steal music indiscriminately, without a care in the world about the artist? They probably weren't going to buy it anyway, so the net loss for the artist is zero.

Also, the money an artist makes on a major label (that they do not own/control) is nothing compared to the money they make touring. Smart artists realize that, and write off music piracy as advertising for their tours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JEDIDIAH, 20 Jun 2012 @ 7:26am
  
  whining dinosaurs
  ...except no one has to "illegally download" anything.
  
  That's the beauty of the real world as opposed to the fantasy land that the media conglomerates and their victims (artists) have been living in.
  
  Legal payment avoidance methods have always been available.
  
  Did you know that Fahrenheit 451 was inspired by Bradbury seeing some kid with a portable radio and going full Luddite over the situation? Nothing is really new here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
openfreetard@exploitationeconomy.com, 19 Jun 2012 @ 2:50pm

the truth will out
hahahahahahahahahahaha... phew... still laughing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 8:50pm
  
  Re: the truth will out
  David Lowery is quite amusing, isn't he?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mason Wheeler, 19 Jun 2012 @ 2:54pm

Holding back the tide?
This example doesn't fit.

From Wikipedia:

Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet "continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: 'Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.' He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again "to the honour of God the almighty King". This incident is usually misrepresented by popular commentators and politicians as an example of Cnut's arrogance.

"Holding back the tide" means the exact opposite of what it's being used as here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Torg (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:04pm
  
  Re: Holding back the tide?
  So we couldn't, perhaps, characterize Cnut as demonstrating how arrogant people have to be to think they can hold back the tide? He commanded the tide to stop; the tide came in anyway. Regardless of his motivations for the command, the saying and its apparent originator mesh well enough, unless you're saying that one who tries to hold back the tide is to be considered pious.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - trollificus (profile), 23 Jun 2012 @ 7:47am
    
    Re: Re: Holding back the tide?
    We can only hope for Lowery to ultimately prove as enlightened as Cnut was. Though I expect his failure to become a multi-millionaire will be blamed on you damn pirates.
    
    Also, get off his lawn.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
blakey, 19 Jun 2012 @ 2:55pm

I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
David Lowery, why do you have a file sharing set up in your own house, sharing files that are not yours? AKA - a book case and books (some belonging to family and friends). Is it because sharing is good and kind? Is it becasue it encourages the spread of the arts? Is it because it encourages further discovery (and sales) of authors? Is it because your favourite authors came from friends lending you books - and therefore taking a sale from the author?
Your figures are incorrect. The music business earns more money than ever before (just not from record sales). There are more musicians making money than ever before (just not full time).
Yes the business has changed. Get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Beech, 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:33pm
  
  Re: I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
  Oh. I was wondering how there wasn't a single dissenting comment on his site. Guess that explains it. Censoring anyone who disagrees. THAT'S the way to have a discussion on a topic!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bratwurzt (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 6:52am
    
    Re: Re: I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
    I'm sorry - censoring? There is no censoring here, Beech.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - LazDude2012, 20 Jun 2012 @ 3:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
      He was most likely referring to Lowery's site. :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - bratwurzt (profile), 21 Jun 2012 @ 12:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
        Oh. Now I feel stupid. From now on I shall read comments before answering them ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        trollificus (profile), 23 Jun 2012 @ 7:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
        Now let's not go overboard and deviate from internet norms!
        
        What will be next? Correct spelling? Punctuation??
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 7:23pm
  
  Re: I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
  There are more musicians making money than ever before
  
  Complete and total bullshit. A lie.
  
  And the US government's BLS statistics prove it:
  
  2000:
  http://www.bls.gov/oes/2000/oes272042.htm
  
  2011:
  http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes 272042.htm
  
  You people are the worst form of slime. Ripping off artists. Real charming.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Robert (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 7:39pm
    
    Re: Re: I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
    The devil is in the details:
    
    (1) Estimates for detailed occupations do not sum to the totals because the totals include occupations not shown separately. Estimates do not include self-employed workers.
    
    (2) Annual wages have been calculated by multiplying the hourly mean wage by a "year-round, full-time" hours figure of 2,080 hours; for those occupations where there is not an hourly mean wage published, the annual wage has been directly calculated from the reported survey data.
    
    (3) The relative standard error (RSE) is a measure of the reliability of a survey statistic. The smaller the relative standard error, the more precise the estimate.
    
    (4) Wages for some occupations that do not generally work year-round, full time, are reported either as hourly wages or annual salaries depending on how they are typically paid.
    
    (8) Estimate not released.
    
    (9) The location quotient is the ratio of the area concentration of occupational employment to the national average concentration. A location quotient greater than one indicates the occupation has a higher share of employment than average, and a location quotient less than one indicates the occupation is less prevalent in the area than average.
    
    The first line indicates the bias. "Do you work full time as a musician?" 'No, but I still make..' "Sorry, we can't include your data."
    
    When one of the few independent studies said the industry was growing, it was not limited to full-time-major-label-US musicians, like the one you're linking to.
    
    You're looking for anything that supports your belief system, which isn't the way to get to the truth. You have to do the opposite, search for what counters your belief first, trying to actually prove yourself wrong. Only then will you have a balanced view and reduce your own bias.
    
    Anyone who frequents Techdirt could link to articles to counter the ones you refer to.
    
    You want the real truth? Ask the IRS but even that won't be 100% accurate for the USA, as Willie Nelson can attest.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:54pm
    
    Re: Re: I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
    You people are the worst form of slime.
    
    Says the jackass taking debunked industry/governement numbers at face value.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 10:47pm
    
    Re: Re: I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
    Is this from the same government who claim that grocery stores employee the most people in an IP intensive industries?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JMT (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 5:34am
    
    Re: Re: I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
    "You people are the worst form of slime. Ripping off artists. Real charming."
    
    Really? Someone who doesn't pay for music is the worst form of slime? It's not like you're saving lives or anything. I think perhaps you overvalue your contribution to the world.
    
    Here's a tip: if you want to make a money from your music, stop calling your customers names.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dickdijon, 19 Jun 2012 @ 11:17pm
  
  Re: I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
  I (and at least 5-6 others) got moderated from Lowery's blog as well. Weird how 6 out of 300 posts disrupt his echo chamber. Here's my deleted post:
  
  �Both of these artists, despite growing global popularity, saw their incomes collapse in the last decade. There is no other explanation except for the fact that �fans� made the unethical choice to take their music without compensating these artists�
  More assumption than fact. Given the complexity of the Internet cloud, it�s pretty much impossible to determine to how many files have been downloaded, and how they directly link to financial losses in the musical industry over that last 15 years. Even if you enacted draconian regulation to monitor the Internet infrastructure, starting from today on, I still don�t think you could get accurate statistics of current worldwide illegal downloading activity, let alone pull log data going back more than a few months.
  Anecdotal data is definitely very, very strong � we all know people who illegally download music. It seems like illegal downloading is deeply ingrained in our culture. But all we have to go on is anecdotes, speculation and projections � no hard evidence as to the actual EXTENT that it has affected the industry.
  Maybe music just sucks now. Maybe the �general� public is just too mesmerized by �pushed� electronic media to go out and seek new content on their own. Maybe the media companies just screwed everything up. Maybe artists peak at a certain point in their careers. All I can do is speculate.
  I firmly believe in supporting art, film and music. I occasionally get burned by crappy artists and albums, but I still buy LP�s/CD�s/Amazon MP3′s. I probably bought more stuff before Napster and Kazaa got shut down � when I could sample a few songs by a new (or old) artist, before buying. (And please, can we bury the ridiculously feeble �You can�t walk into a store and bite an apple/wahoo a 12-pack to sample� analogies? Record stores used to routinely allow customers to listen to (partial) LP�s before buying � some still do).
  And David, dramatizing the deaths of Linkous and Chestnut to underscore your point is just f***ing sick, man. Killed by illegal downloading? If they truly were your friends, then leave them out of your political arguments.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - blakey, 20 Jun 2012 @ 6:22am
    
    Re: Re: I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
    what i don't quite understand is the difference between file sharing on line and file sharing offline?
    Back in the 80s as a kid i started my music education by taping about 200 albums ( i bought about 20 in the same period). The music industry seemed to be pretty well unaffected by this.
    Nowadays i buy lots of music (but mainly fairly alt. Lower Dens are great!).
    I can't help thinking that something else is the problem - economic downturn? not providing the music in a manner the buyer wants?
    I do download tv series, but then no one wants to sell me episodes so there's not much else i can do.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - trollificus (profile), 23 Jun 2012 @ 8:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re: I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
      Good alt. taste there. Gillian Welch, Sara Jarosz...these aren't really the people most filesharers and music labels are talking about, but they are people who would never have gotten a penny from me sans filesharing.
      
      As a proof-of-concept, I obtained the entire Welch/Rawlings back catalog (before Harrow and the Harvest, which I did purchase) and then sent them money...and I figure it was more money than they would have received if I had bought two copies of every album. So...am I a pirate, Mr. Lowery?? If so, I'm comfortable with the fact that I haven't hurt, by my piracy, the people who produce the music I like to listen to.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - dwg (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 2:28pm
    
    Re: Re: I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
    �Both of these artists, despite growing global popularity, saw their incomes collapse in the last decade. There is no other explanation except for the fact that �fans� made the unethical choice to take their music without compensating these artists."
    
    NO OTHER EXPLANATION? How about the economy collapsing over the past decade, such that people had less disposable income and decided not to spend as much of it on music--including the music of these two poor souls? How about estimates of their "growing global popularity" might have either been wrong or simply not correlated to sales and royalties? How about they failed to ensure that their business models evolve, along with technology? How about . . . Jesus, this is pathetic--pegging two suicides, ultimately, to file-sharing, is perhaps the lowest tactic I've seen so far. Not surprising that it's based on the worst logical fail I've seen as well.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sten Ryason, 21 Jun 2012 @ 1:38pm
  
  Re: I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
  Books are not the same thing as mp3 sharing. Very simple - books cannot be infinitely duplicated at no cost even if you own the appropriate technology - it still costs money to print a new book. Even if you decided to scan the book in, yes, well THAT's free, except for the hours and hours of labor involved. So if you lend out a book, you no longer have access ot that book's content. If you send someone a copy of your mp3 file, now that person has a copy and you have a copy, which both of you can enjoy simultaneously.
  
  What Ms. White was complaining was that buying any of her 11,000 songs was too much trouble, compared to just copying them from friends, from the internet, or from wherever. As Mr. Lowery pointed out, is setting up an iTunes account so darn difficult?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - dwg (profile), 22 Jun 2012 @ 8:09pm
    
    Re: Re: I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
    I keep missing the "Lend and I won't use while it's loaned out" button on iTunes. Link please.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Torg (profile), 22 Jun 2012 @ 8:48pm
    
    Re: Re: I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
    "As Mr. Lowery pointed out, is setting up an iTunes account so darn difficult?"
    
    Relative to setting up a Spotify account, if you want access to 11,000 songs? Most certainly. Coming up with $11,000 of disposable income to spend on music is a nontrivial task.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2012 @ 10:19pm
  
  Re: I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
  And you know this how? The music business makes more than ever before? Have you been in the business for 30 years and have your own independent label? And songwriter?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Audrey, 19 Jun 2012 @ 2:56pm

boys will be boys
you boys at Techdirt seem to like to argue just for the sake of it. No one on the opposite side of your position, including what I have read of David Lowery's ideas, is arguing against expansion of technology and its use in the marketplace. the simple point that you can't admit to is that piracy is illegal and morally unethical, no matter how much you twist it with broken logic. I suppose I can understand where you're coming from, because if you concede to these ethics you would go out of business-- since your business seems to be proselytizing hype of corporate demagogues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:02pm
  
  Re: boys will be boys
  How is piracy morally unethical if everybody engages in piracy?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Torg (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:11pm
    
    Re: Re: boys will be boys
    Like so.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
      If music is subjective than isn't morality just as subjective?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Audrey, 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Hi. My name is Audrey. What's your name? Given that you've self titled yourself a "Coward" I'm going to be gentle with you, since I imagine that you live a life in fear and cowardice. I'm not going to debate with you about morality... this is a highly covered topic in all the worlds religions, philosophies and politics, so I imagine you're just trying to instigate me. Good for you. You succeeded. You've annoyed me with me the pseudo-stupidity of your question. I know you're smarter than that and that you truly understand the difference between what is moral and ethical, and what is not, and subjective experience has nothing to do with it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Are you under the impression that morals and ethics are clear-cut, and everyone agrees on them? Because I think your sample pool of "religions, philosophies and politics" might be a little small in that case...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        How is piracy morally unethical? How is making copies morally unethical?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 10:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        LOL, so Audrey is unique and identifiable? Or are you THAT Audrey? Funny to see you get on the high horse even for this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niall (profile), 21 Jun 2012 @ 5:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        If you borthered to research this site at all, 'Audrey' (and how can I be sure that's your name, it might be Emily for all I know!) you would know that anyone posting anonymously is called 'Anonymous Coward'. It is still possible to post anonymously but with an identifiable name, like yourself - and points to you for doing that, but I still see an awful lot of pot, kettle and sheer blackholeness.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Audrey, 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:35pm
    
    Re: Re: boys will be boys
    it's stealing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Leigh Beadon (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
      it's stealing.
      
      I guess if you just woke up to this debate yesterday, or were actually born yesterday, you might think piracy is the same as stealing. Most of us have moved way, way past such a simplistic and obviously incorrect notion though - you should try to catch up.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Audrey, 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        it's stealing. what can i say? I'm just a dumb girl who doesn't believe in downloading other people's stuff for free, like Emily White did. it's stealing. i'm not all lost in this tech jargon and technological economic philosophy free market blah blah semantics stuff because it's so simple. it's stealing. sorry if i'm messing up your fancy technology and economy arguments. it's stealing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        ...
        ...
        ...
        sorry, I was looking around to see if the Stealing Monster appeared in the mirror after you summoned him.
        
        Anyway, here's a simple way you can prove your point: call the cops, send them a copy of Emily's column, and report her for grand larceny. When she gets arrested, I'll agree with you that file sharing is the same thing as stealing.
        
        Wrestle with that one for a bit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        I have 10.8 trillion copies of Moby-Dick. Did I steal all of them?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chosen Reject (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Curse you! So that's where my copies went. GAH! I was reading that on my ebook reader and now you've gone and stolen all the ebook copies!! Give them back!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        No, you idiot! Just shut up and claim the insurance! You'll get millions
        
        I personally fill a terabyte drive with copies for each piece of media I own, just to up my net worth!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Audrey, 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        one last thing before I go, Coward. Moby Dick is a really bad example. Try again. Moby Dick is Public Domain (meaning: it's copyright has expired). Nobody is arguing about Public Domain music (eg. Silent Night, Jingle Bells etc...). the discussion is about protecting artists (with up-to-date Copyright on their songs) from Copyright violations by online users who download it illegally from Piracy websites who do not pay any royalties, or any of their ad revenue (from mega corps like Google) to the artists. So no, you didn't steal Moby Dick. Phew!!! Your conscience is clear. You can't steal Moby Dick... it's Public Domain. You have lawful use of all 10.8 trillion copies, so why don't you get to reading one of those copies and get yourself out of trouble here before you turn into a complete Tech Dirtbag. For now, I forgive you, you're just ignorant.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Wait, we can have Moby Dick, Silent Night and Jingle Bells, you say? Phew! Welp, that's all the culture I need! 'Night folks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Please stop shilling for the RIAA and MPAA.
        
        Also, I have twenty copies of s-CRY-ed on my hard drive.
        
        Then I bought the anime.
        
        ...
        
        How is File Sharing bad again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Did I say Moby-Dick? Sorry, I meant The Great Gatsby.
        
        10.8 trillion copies stolen, according to you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Watchit (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 6:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        You fiend! 10.8 trillion copies of The Great Gatsby! Think of the poor starving author who worked so long to create that recent work of modern storytelling, who you have just robbed of $$$ = 10.8million books * $9.99 per book!!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 10:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        So what about retroactive extension of copyrights dragging works out of public domain? Do you call that stealing?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        rubberpants, 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        What do you think can/should be done about it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        openfreetard@exploitationeconomy.com, 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        1) stop selling advertising to sites operating illegally
        2) stop processing payments for sites operating illegally
        3) alert consumers of their illegal activity (check)
        4) create a master rights registry for referencing copyrights
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        1) stop selling advertising to sites operating illegally
        
        How do you define "operating illegally"?
        
        2) stop processing payments for sites operating illegally
        
        How do you define "operating illegally"?
        
        3) alert consumers of their illegal activity (check)
        
        How do you define "operating illegally"?
        
        You act like this is easy or that it's "obvious." It's not. The VCR was considered to be "operating illegally." The MP3 player was considered to be "operating illegally." YouTube was considered to be "operating illegally." Radio was considered to be "operating illegally." Cable TV was considered to be "operating illegally." In each of these cases, once they were declared legal, business models evolved that worked. In your world, you'd shut them down based on your assessment that they're illegal.
        
        That's scary.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Watchit (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 6:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Isn't it obvious! I mean, if some politician up on capitol hill can easily point out what is and isn't an illegally operating site, why can't smarter people? There's no way the government would censor a site without a good reason, am I right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 10:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        #3 - Ok you first. Open up all the records of every email, skype, web history, etc connected to you and let us go looking to make sure your behaving.
        Because that is what your demanding everyone else have to do, so you first. Give up all of your privacy for the sake of showing us nothing can go wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Cirroc: [ stepping out] It's just "Cirroc", your Honor.. and, yes, I'm ready. [ approaches the jury box ] Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW.. and run off into the hills, or wherever.. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, I wonder: "Did little demons get inside and type it?" I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there is one thing I do know - when a man like my client slips and falls on a sidewalk in front of a public library, then he is entitled to no less than two million in compensatory damages, and two million in punitive damages. Thank you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        So you never did a mix-tape, you never heard a song on the radio for free, you never watched TV for free, you never borough anything from anybody all those things are free to you and you didn't compensate the artist either so by your own stick you are an immoral thief.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Watchit (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 6:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        well, there's not exactly a lot of "free" TV these days, though I suppose if you go over to someone else's house and "steal"(watch) their TV...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JEDIDIAH, 20 Jun 2012 @ 7:33am
        
        Free and really cheap TV.
        Want free TV?
        
        Just put up an antenna.
        
        Hulu is also free if you use a desktop web browser.
        
        There are also not-quite-free subscription services like Hulu Plus, Netflix, and Amazon Prime.
        
        There are plenty of guys on other forums that like to brag about how the $8 they spend on Netflix is a replacement for a $100 cable subscription.
        
        The industry shill in question is whining about such services and complaining that they aren't lucrative enough.
        
        Video killed the radio star. Everquest killed the video star.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jakerome (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Yes, just like when a 5 year old boy copies the drawing made by a 5 year old girl in his Kindergarten class it's stealing. That's why we send all Kindergarten kids to jail.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mason Wheeler, 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        There's a clear difference between stealing and copying. If I steal something, (your car, for example,) you suddenly don't have it anymore. This is why stealing is morally wrong: I'm depriving you of something that is rightfully yours. There isn't anything inherently wrong with me having a car; the problem is in me taking *your* car away from you.
        
        When a file is copied, no such loss occurs, therefore there is no theft involved. It really is that simple. If you don't believe so, please provide an equally common-sense explanation for why it *is* morally equivalent to theft.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 7:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        That's nice. Wonderful, even. You've just decided that you're right and everyone else is wrong, and that's the end of the matter. Except... the Supreme Court disagrees, and know what, Miss Sparky? They trump you. Get over yourself, and stop trying to apply your moral and ethical code to other people.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        trollificus (profile), 23 Jun 2012 @ 8:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        If the record companies can point to the hole in their inventory where the file I (hypothetically) got USED to be, I'll confess to theft.
        
        Oh, but wait. Are they talking about not getting a hypothetical $0.99 for something that cost them $0.00 to produce? Sorry, I'm just a dumb boy who doesn't find the theft in this. Especially since the hypothetical track sucked so bad. They wouldn't have given me my $0.99 back, would they?
        
        Would that be theft on the musicians' part?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - dreddsnik, 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
      " it's stealing. "
      
      It's not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - lolwut?!, 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
      No honey.
      
      Going into your back yard and taking your apple tree is stealing.
      
      Going into your back yard without permission or lawful excuse and painting your apple tree so I can sell or share the result is illegal, anti-social and not nice, but anyone smarter than an idiot knows it's not stealing. Even some idiots can probably figure this one out.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Niall (profile), 21 Jun 2012 @ 9:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Note that the 'illegal' bit is the entering the back yard without permission. Painting the apple tree isn't. Especially if you can paint it from somewhere else that isn't her property.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Publius (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:05pm
  
  Re: boys will be boys
  Infringement is definitely illegal at this time, but far from unethical. Copying ideas, expressions and culture is the bedrock that today's culture has built itself on.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Leigh Beadon (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:20pm
  
  Re: boys will be boys
  No one on the opposite side of your position, including what I have read of David Lowery's ideas, is arguing against expansion of technology and its use in the marketplace
  
  Yes, they are. They don't always realize it, but that's almost always what they are arguing.
  
  You do realize that a piece of music, once made, is infinite now, right? That's a technological fact.
  
  One more time for emphasis: music is infinite, and that is a fact of technology.
  
  Absolutely any philosophy that attempts to limit the infinite nature of music, or any other digital good, is exactly what you just said: "an argument against the expansion of technology and its use in the marketplace."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Audrey, 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:51pm
    
    Re: Re: boys will be boys
    you're high on some nihilistic trip into infinite philosophy. i'm just a dumb simple minded girl and don't understand all this infinity. Piracy is stealing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Beech, 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
      You obviously haven't been here long. If I had to boil down the editors' position it would be something like, "Piracy is very very bad naughty, however, it cannot be stopped, and therefore the marketplace must adjust in order to compensate for it and profit in spite of it."
      
      It's kind of like saying "hurricanes are morally and ethically unjustified and should not be allowed." You won't find many who disagree that hurricanes are great. But no matter how many laws you try to pass, come hurricane season there will be hurricanes regardless. So demonizing those who suggest you hurricane-proof your house to brace against the oncoming storm as being "Pro-hurricane" and talking about how nicely your house is decorated won't do much come the next storm.
      
      Also, arguing is awesome fun! That's why debate class is an elective in high school and not what happens in detention.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Leigh Beadon (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
      So your point is that it's dumb and simple-minded to think piracy is stealing? I tend to agree.
      
      Were you expecting us all to stoop to your intellectual level just to make you feel comfortable? Awww.... well don't worry, you've got big nasty words like "nihilistic" to keep you safe!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
      Piracy is stealing.
      
      Do you think repeating a false statement over and over again is proof?
      
      No one denies that copyright infringement is against the law. There's nothing to argue there. What we're arguing is what you do about it. Stomping your feet and claiming (incorrectly) that "piracy is stealing" is no way to move things forward. It's a way to look childish.
      
      Let's talk reality.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Hmmm, 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Repeatly saying that "Piracy is stealing" is a false statement is .. well .. also false. I'm not quite how we got the the point where people say up is down, and right is left, with a straight face. Clearly, *clearly*, piracy is theft. If we cant agree on that point, then the rest of the conversation is moot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        If copyright infringement is theft, than why aren't more copyright cases held in a criminal court of law and not a civil court?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Clearly, *clearly*, piracy is theft. If we cant agree on that point, then the rest of the conversation is moot.
        
        Um, okay - feel free to leave the conversation then. We're tired of that idiotic argument anyway, and have been focusing on more useful things for a long time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hmmm, 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        I guess I would like to understand how extreme this viewpoint is. If you dont think Piracy is theft, then I assume you think its ok to file share software as well, even web sites. Furthermore, if someone were to, on a daily basis - scrape and clone "www.techdirt.com" - to "www.mypaydirt.com" - throw some extra advertising links in there - and offer a clone of your web site - your daily content, without your permission, for free - thats not theft, and you are perfectly ok with that?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Furthermore, if someone were to, on a daily basis - scrape and clone "www.techdirt.com" - to "www.mypaydirt.com" - throw some extra advertising links in there - and offer a clone of your web site - your daily content, without your permission, for free - thats not theft, and you are perfectly ok with that?
        
        Heh. This is a dead giveaway that you're new here. Sorry to deprive you of what I'm sure you hoped would be a big "gotcha" moment - but there are several sites that already do exactly that. Here's a couple random ones found on google, out of many that are floating around, with scrapes of some of my content:
        
        http://presidentialrace.oodja.com/a/detail.do/id-beb30511-cb38-4160-9b2e-1bd49bf583c4
        
        http://informationliberation.com/?id=38699
        
        Fine by me. Mike has no problem with it either. It's not as if we make it hard on them: our RSS feed includes the full text of each post. If you'd like to set one up, it's quite simple. Those sites never get any attention anyway - and if they do then, hell, they must be offering something cool that we aren't! In which case we'll try to figure out what it is and do it better! It's called competition, and it's a great way to accomplish stuff. In the mean time, I take their mechanical copycatting of our content as a compliment, and a harmless one at that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        It's also kind of important to point somehting out here:
        
        Saying that piracy is not theft is NOT the same thing as saying that piracy is okay. Vandalism is not the same as theft either. That doesn't mean vandalism is okay. THat's a silly logical leap.
        
        You'll find there is a huge variety of viewpoints here on just how bad piracy is, or whether it is bad at all, as another commenter pointed out. Some people think it's as bad as theft. Some people think it's actually noble and right. I have even heard one or two wackos claim it's worse than theft. And just about every possible point in between has been covered.
        
        Feel free to dive into that argument. Make your case for why you think piracy is no better than theft. But - to claim it is the same thing is blatantly false by any definition you choose, and an insult to the intelligence of everyone reading.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        But the original site and all its content still exists in its original location and is still owned by the original owner.
        
        Theft requires the owner to be deprived of rightfully owned property. Since no person is deprived of property when copyright is infringed, nothing is stolen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Watchit (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Nope, that's not theft, what was stolen? That would be a case of copyright infringement, plagiarism, and all around not niceness.
        
        Personally I would not ok with it (if it were my site in this case), but I would not go so far as to accuse them of theft! Because you see they didn't steal anything from me, they just copied it and claimed it as their own. And their are other ways to deal with that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        If you dont think Piracy is theft, then I assume you think its ok to file share software as well, even web sites.
        
        Dude. Did you not see where we said that infringement is still illegal? It's just not *theft*.
        
        Furthermore, if someone were to, on a daily basis - scrape and clone "www.techdirt.com" - to "www.mypaydirt.com" - throw some extra advertising links in there - and offer a clone of your web site - your daily content, without your permission, for free - thats not theft, and you are perfectly ok with that?
        
        Yes. We're perfectly okay with that:
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090116/0348223430.shtml
        
        Go for it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Torg (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 6:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        "If you dont think Piracy is theft, then I assume you think its ok to file share software as well"
        
        Because theft is the only thing that's morally wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        No, but then I don't think rape and murder and deliberately infecting people with HIV are ok or theft either.
        
        Many of us think lots of things that are not theft are not ok, and even that there ought to be legal sanctions against some of that "not ok" stuff.
        
        But enough of my views. I want to learn more about you. Do you think terrorism is merely theft or ok?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 12:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        If you want to read proof that some of these idiots don't bother taking on board the actual arguments at hand, simply read the above. This exact argument has been made and addressed many, many times and yet here it is again in all its idiotic glory.
        
        How do you people expect to make any headway with changing peoples' opinions when you can't even come up with arguments that haven't been debunked a hundreds times in the last few years?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Eponymous Coward, 20 Jun 2012 @ 12:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        So everything is either Theft or Right then. . .
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2012 @ 12:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        I do share software all the time that is why open source was invented.
        
        What software do you want mate?
        
        Sourceforge
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Beech, 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Well, to sum up the piracy =\= theft situation in a catchy way...
        
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        trollificus (profile), 23 Jun 2012 @ 8:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Oh man. You used notes that David Lowery used in some of his songs!! You f'ing thief!!
        
        Also, did I hear a piano in there? Totally not cool. Didn't you know that when artists make music, it's TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY ORIGINAL?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        It's been explained on many occasions why the two things are different, and why the term "theft" does not apply (hint: theft involves removing property from its owner, copying does not). That's not to say infringement is OK, but that they are quite simply completely different concepts.
        
        If you can't get that simple point, then at least you admit you're arguing a fantasy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Clearly, *clearly*, piracy is theft. If we cant agree on that point, then the rest of the conversation is moot.
        
        "The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud." -- US Supreme Court
        
        How many people do you know who have been accused of infringement have been turned over to the police and charged with criminal theft charges?
        
        Right.
        
        Let's agree on some basic facts: copyright infringement is against the law. But it is not theft. Arguing otherwise is flat out wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Eponymous Coward, 20 Jun 2012 @ 1:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        We know those claiming piracy is theft in their confused, circular logic mean that the theft is of the money owed to the artist for the pirated good(s) in question and not the good(s) itself. They appear to be far too stuck on these hypothetical, stolen profits to move past it anytime soon so you may be just spinning your wheels hopelessly in trying to debate it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JEDIDIAH, 20 Jun 2012 @ 7:39am
        
        Plagarism vs. Conflation
        They need that argument. They need that argument like a security blanket because they don't have anything more meaningful to say. They don't have a real argument so they have to "hijack" theft.
        
        On a certain level it's kind of like plagarism.
        
        "Something that makes you go hmmmmm"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - rubberpants, 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
      Since you feel so strongly about it do you any specific solutions to offer?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Audrey, 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Now you're talking!! I like solutions. As users, we stop downloading illegal music. If we all stop. It stops. I know. That's an insane, helpless solution, because it means we'd all have to figure out how to earn more money and have the self-control to not be tantalized by carrots (like free music) dangling in front of our faces. I thought Mr. Lowery put it nicely-- we'd have to learn to go without. I know. That's hard. We want our free stuff. On the larger picture, we ask Pirate websites to give their ad revenue (in a percentage that's proportionate to agreed upon fees for artists) >>> to the artists! Novel idea: Pirates actually pay the artists. Sure, we still could all "file share" and get what appears to be free music for us, but the advertisers (like Google who pay the Pirates) would enforce that the Pirate actually pay something to artists, rather than just facilitate "file sharing" (read: piracy), and take ALL the ad revenue (which is the current model). So currently, Google and other big corps pay Pirates, we get free music, and Pirates get all the money. Instead, Google and other big corps say: No, we won't put ads on your site, or pay you for advertising, unless you actually pay the artists. Of course, Google and others don't seem to want to do this. Ask Mike what to do about that....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Now you're talking!! I like solutions. As users, we stop downloading illegal music. If we all stop. It stops. I know. That's an insane, helpless solution, because it means we'd all have to figure out how to earn more money and have the self-control to not be tantalized by carrots (like free music) dangling in front of our faces. I thought Mr. Lowery put it nicely-- we'd have to learn to go without. I know. That's hard.
        
        What if there were a solution that let people listen to music *and* let artists make money too?
        
        On the larger picture, we ask Pirate websites to give their ad revenue (in a percentage that's proportionate to agreed upon fees for artists) >>> to the artists!
        
        Yeah, that's been tried, and those sites got sued out of existence. Not really a good solution, unfortunately, thanks to folks like the RIAA.
        
        Of course, part of the problem is you think, incorrectly, that those sites make a lot of money. They don't. Most of those ads only pay out if people click. And let me let you in on a little secret: the people who seek out free music? They don't click on ads.
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/04532617525/do-pirate-sites-really-make-that-much- money-um-no.shtml
        
        So currently, Google and other big corps pay Pirates, we get free music, and Pirates get all the money.
        
        You're barking up the tree of ignorance. (1) Those sites don't make much money (2) Google is actually quite good at cutting those sites off (read the Megaupload indictment).
        
        Of course, Google and others don't seem to want to do this.
        
        This is wrong. You don't seem to know what you're talking about. Again, look at the Megaupload indictment and maybe learn a little about what Google does when it discovers such sites.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        This is wrong. You don't seem to know what you're talking about. Again, look at the Megaupload indictment and maybe learn a little about what Google does when it discovers such sites.
        
        LOL! Yeah, shutting down the one of the world's most obvious pirate sites (4% of the internet!) means that they're doing all they can. Pirate apologist much?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Tell me, smart guy, can you tell what's under copyright and what's not?
        
        Also, can you tell me who owns said copyright if you knew it?
        
        Not to mention that multiple people/companies might claim copyright to something...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        By the way, Pirate Mike, while I've got your attention. I half-expected that you'd have something more to say about his letter. But the fact is you just blow over the tough parts in your quest to defend piracy at all costs. If your alternative business models were so great, you'd have proof and lots of people would be using them. Fact is you're just a opinionated, hateful, and pompous douchebag. Congrats. Just so you know how Lowery's letter is affecting people... True story. My mom, who has never once talked about copyright with me, sent me an email today saying she'd read this letter that got her thinking. Wow. Fact is, you're nothing but a bottom-feeding, angry-20-something-pandering, sack of turds. Lowery ate your lunch, Mikey. And people that are real always will.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        "If your alternative business models were so great, you'd have proof and lots of people would be using them."
        
        Uh...
        
        I thought hundreds of thousands of people used Kickster all the time?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        But the fact is you just blow over the tough parts
        
        There are no "tough parts" in what he wrote. There's literally nothing of substance to respond to.
        
        True story. My mom, who has never once talked about copyright with me, sent me an email today saying she'd read this letter that got her thinking.
        
        I had no idea your mom was a pirate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        If your alternative business models were so great, you'd have proof and lots of people would be using them
        
        Um. We do have proof. Lots of people are using them. I write about it all the time. You must be new here.
        
        But, I also have written about the history of transition and disruptive innovation. And during that period of time you have people who cling to the old ways of doing things and deny deny deny that the world is changing. The world for them fails, because they don't adapt. And during that transition it's easy to point to them and say that since they failed the model doesn't work. But that only shows that *they* failed.
        
        The model is working. It's working for more and more people, and in 10 years time, you'll have forgotten how wrong you were when the model we're talking about is standard.
        
        These things don't happen overnight, mostly because people like you and Lowery pine for a past that never existed. Changes takes time, but those who have embraced it already know how successful it is. Others are learning every day.
        
        Simple fact: no one is moving in the other direction. No one is going from embracing these models back to pining for the past. Lots of people are going in the other direction. You're championing a dead era. History is written by the winners. It's kinda sad to see you cling so desperately to the losers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 7:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Mike doesn't seem to like the heat coming out of the kitchen.
        
        The wheel turns. Payback is a bitch and karma is the most powerful force on earth.
        
        Try to have a nice day now, Mikey.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Karma will strike at Mike because he tells them their business models aren't working.
        
        Way to kill the messenger, Karma.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Agreed, karma is a bitch and the times when labels and studios could just treat people like crap is over.
        
        They don't hold the appeal or public opinion anymore.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Still carting out the old chestnut that you're only hurting labels when you rip off music?
        
        You dorks seriously need some new material.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 10:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        If labels, in their self-centered outrage, were to lash out at artists and disrupt their pay like withholding royalties such that the artists have to sue them to get paid, guess what - it's still the labels' fault. Just like how Carreon is lashing out at the charities who have absolutely no link to Inman other than how Inman is going to forward money to them based on his reputational expense.
        
        You can pull all the fabricated government statistics paid for by the Chamber of Commerce all you want. If artists have to sue their labels for their royalties, it's very hard to convince people that the labels don't have a hand in it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 10:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Says the guy rambling on about karma, lol.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2012 @ 12:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Mostly yes, nobody else has the money to "protect" their intellectual property, nobody else has the knowledge and resources to use the laws the way they are today, so basically it only hurts medium to large organizations, if it hurts at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 1:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        I love your content-free attacks. It's fun to work out what your insane blatherings are actually on about.
        
        "Payback is a bitch and karma is the most powerful force on earth."
        
        Which will be why the major label stranglehold on the record industry is slipping and why real artists instead of prefabricated karaoke singers will thrive when they fail. Long live the future. Sorry that it means your career ripping off consumers is going away, but hey it's a well deserved fate. Karma, if you will.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 5:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        "...karma is the most powerful force on earth."
        
        No, like most aspects of religions, it's just a made-up concept so people can feel good about themselves. It is neither powerful nor a force.
        
        Do you have a reality-related argument?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        trollificus (profile), 23 Jun 2012 @ 8:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Did you give yourself a medal here or something?
        
        You're like the Rowan Atkinson character telling himself "I'm weeening! I'm weeening!!"
        
        Well, enjoy the endorphins, weeener.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 6:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        LOL! If you speak for the artists, Mike, then why is your core fan base a bunch of pirates? Lowery speaks for the artists. You aren't qualified to tie his shoes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 6:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Strawman much? Generalise much? What Lowery speaks is anathema to how a lot of artists feel. Trying to pitch this kind of discussion as pirates vs artists is neither accurate nor helpful.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 7:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Citation needed on fan base being a bunch of pirates...oh wait, you're too lazy for burden of proof.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 2:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        "oh wait, you're too lazy for burden of proof."
        
        Indeed they are...
        
        The bottom line is they have none. They constantly refuse to take into account the nuances of the real situation (e.g. that dropping music sales have as much to do with saturation - people have already bought albums on vinyl, cassette, CD and see no reason to keep on buying - competition and unbundling as they do to piracy). They therefore split the argument into "us vs them" and assume that people who disagree and criticise/attack the legacy model must be pirates.
        
        That, combined with their appeals to subjective emotional arguments rather than objective facts, means they cannot cite. Reality is too complex for their arguments to work, so they concentrate on what they "feel" to be right, which includes accusing everybody who disagrees with them of being pirates. Their tiny brains cannot comprehend that opposition can come from non-pirates, so they assume everyone who disagrees is one. Because this "feels" right to them, they assume it to be the truth even though, like most assumptions they make, it's the oposite of the truth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 20 Jun 2012 @ 7:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Mike doesn't claim to speak for the artists. He does however speak to the effect that they have other options, in fact a plethora of them nowadays. And celebrates and lets others know about some of the success stories using the new outlets available to them.
        
        Also, how do you know anything about his core fan base? Can you provide proof that myself and others here are "a bunch of pirates"? Or are you just full of sh*t, like usual?
        
        Lowery doesn't speak for any artists. As Karl has pointed out, Lowery is just like you and some of the other ACs on here. "Oh, that's not going to work for everyone! So it's a failure!" And, "How dare we all get a cut of the same pie! I want a big slice all to myself! Sharing any profits with others, even if that means more get something as opposed to before when they got nothing, is bullsh*t!" That's what Lowery speaks.
        
        And given Lowery's tirades on here before, I very much think Mike (and others here) would want very little to do with him, much less tie his shoes. Heck, even when Mike tried to be nice to him, Lowery went off calling people "fuckface" and ranting and raving like an idiot. A far cry from the "qualified" person who claims to speak for artists and a very far cry from someone who teaches at a prestigious university. He came off sounding like a loon and a troll. Definitely not someone who sounded even close to reasonable or qualified to speak about anything, much less speak for the artists against piracy.
        
        But yeah, go on spewing your nonsense average_joe. There are days where I feel I've made an error in my opinion of you, then you say things like this and I realize those days are just ones where you've taken your meds and almost come off as a reasonable person (and while I may disagree with what you say, I still semi-respect you). But alas, such days are rare and rather fleeting as is evident.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        trollificus (profile), 23 Jun 2012 @ 8:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Ah. Can't tie his own shoes. Explains his musicianship.
        
        ZING! See? Two can play this little insult game!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Good luck with that.
        
        Just know that you're doing all artists, everywhere, a disservice. You're selling them on the idea of fighting a battle that you openly admit is hopeless, instead of encouraging them to embrace change and find new opportunities.
        
        Kinda shameful.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        "Now you're talking!! I like solutions. As users, we stop downloading illegal music."
        
        Won't work for a number of reasons.
        
        1: Even if everyone in America stopped, that's only 300 million people on a planet of 7 billion people.
        2: Illegal downloading happens in areas where there's no legal alternative or the legal alternative is crap.
        3: Illegal downloads also happen when the economy can't afford to purchase the stuff. I mean, who's going to spend a whole day's wages just to purchase some music/a game/a movie?
        4: Bill Gates has said "let them pirate our software. When they're ready to buy, they'll be used to using our software and not the competitor's software, so they'll buy from us instead of the other guy.
        5: You can barely get 2 people on this planet to agree on any issue for anything, how the HELL are you going to get 7 BILLION people to agree to do something? Not to mention that different areas of the world have different cultures.
        6: The best way an economy improves, when starting out, *IS* to commit copyright infringement. Don't believe me? Check out the United States when it was a brand new country. Writers in the U.K. and Europe were *SCREAMING* how the United States was a lawless country all because we didn't respect their copyrights and "stole" everything to improve our culture and economy.
        7: In 1841, a man by the name of Thomas Macaulay, said to the British house of commons, warning them about what would happen if they extended copyright to lifetime + 60 years...
        
        And I quote...
        
        "At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living."
        
        He foresaw that in the mid 1800s.
        
        Look at what's happening now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Torg (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 6:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        "Now you're talking!! I like solutions. As users, we stop downloading illegal music."
        
        Done.
        
        "That's an insane, helpless solution, because it means we'd all have to figure out how to earn more money and have the self-control to not be tantalized by carrots (like free music) dangling in front of our faces."
        
        Wait. You want me to give up free music too? I can't do that, I'd go broke before filling a quarter of my iPod! I'd much rather spend my money on video games, where the paid offerings are actually better than the free ones. Or were you under the impression that all free music is illegal, and your two requests are analogous? They aren't. Doing without free music is a much more restrictive policy than doing without illegal music. Between freely available Bandcamp albums and artists who just put their work directly on Mediafire, I only ever pay for music if I feel like supporting an artist, all within the bounds of the law and the artist's volition. Are you going to tell me that's stealing too?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 7:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Just a little nit to pick, but 'free music' doesn't automatically mean 'piracy.' I get 'free music' off Pandora all the time! You should try it. Seriously. It's totally free.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        lolwut?!, 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Sorry Audrey, but your solution is not a solution to my dilemma in all this and hence I must reject it.
        
        I don't trust this assault on my rights will cease if all those people out there who are infringing on other peoples' copyright simply stop tomorrow.
        
        I personally do not deliberately access infringing content. I cannot check the provinence of all content I access, I do not have the resources to do that and probably no one does. But I certainly make no effort to access infringing content and avoid it to the extent that my knowledge-state facilitates.
        
        But none of this stops the assault on my rights. None of it stops the assault on a market place whose innovation is important and beneficial to me and my welfare. No good behaviour on my part protects my rights and my welfare from the radical IP extremists and their tame politician-henchmen (and henchwomen).
        
        The fact that the entities attacking my rights and welfare rely almost, if not entirely, on hyperbolic, unsound, dubiously interpretated "research" and statistics gives me no reason to believe that if everyone who is deliberately infringing on other peoples' copyright simply stopped, that this assault on my rights and welfare would also stop. It gives me very good reason to suspect the contrary.
        
        No solution that does not solve my dilemma in all this is any solutin at all to me. So I reject your proposed solution and respectfully direct you back to your drawing board, or cave paintings if your prefer.
        
        As to paying for content, I will not pay to see a movie in an ordinary movie theatre, although I will pay to see it on DVD in my own home. But that's not because it's cheaper but because I do not like the ordinary cinema experience as much as I like watching a DVD in my home.
        
        Conversely I will put up with all the inconvenience (transportation logistics, including costs, and having to fit in with someone else's schedule) and pay more to experience a movie in the niche boutique cinema offered by some local movie theatre complexes. I get to sit in a comfortable chair (and this lack of comfort is why I no longer pay to see a movie in a regular theatre)with a foot rest, my own dedicated arm rests, and the ability to recline, and as a bonus, I have hot food and hot and cold beverages a button press away.
        
        It's not about the money but the experience. I don't forgo the ordinary movie theatre because of the cost but because I simply do not enjoy it as much as watching a DVD at home but I happily pay significantly more than the cost of an ordinary movie theatre ticket to access the premium niche experience offered by some local theatres.
        
        It's not about my willingness to spend for what I want, but rather about my unwillingess to buy experiences I do not want. Offer me what a want without forcing on me what I do not want and I'll pay. That's not a secret or new revealation but a founding basis of all efficient businesses. If the mega-media industry is not prepared to operate accordingly, then it's not efficient and I see no reason to take undue measures to protect the waste this necessarily indicates.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 12:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        Her's a simple solution: listen to the goddamned market and propose solutiona based on that.
        
        Look at the differenc ebetween Origin and Steam as the major example of this. Valve gives people a reaosn to buy. Origin, until recently, was almost unusuable for most of its users.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 1:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        " As users, we stop downloading illegal music. If we all stop. It stops. I know."
        
        If people just stopped committing violent acts, we'd achieve world peace and could spend the rest of our days sitting in drum circles at one with nature. Both things are as likely as each other.
        
        Fortunately, some of us are not only not engaging in piracy, but pointing out ways to do business that makes it an irrelevant problem. Some people are too stupid to understand the actual arguments, though.
        
        "we'd all have to figure out how to earn more money and have the self-control to not be tantalized by carrots (like free music) dangling in front of our faces"
        
        What's wrong with free music? There's millions of perfectly legal free songs out there that don't require breaking any legal or moral code to obtain them and benefit the artists directly or indirectly... oh, you're one of those diots who thinks that music is only created for profit. Never mind...
        
        "Pirates actually pay the artists"
        
        If you read the studies and took your head out of the us vs. them black & white fantasy world, you'd see they already do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Eponymous Coward, 20 Jun 2012 @ 1:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
        "I like solutions. As users, we stop downloading illegal music. If we all stop. It stops. I know. That's an insane, helpless solution, because it means we'd all have to figure out how to earn more money and have the self-control to not be tantalized by carrots (like free music) dangling in front of our faces. I thought Mr. Lowery put it nicely-- we'd have to learn to go without."
        
        You call that a solution? How is the artist helped by this so-called solution again: whether I download the song(s) illegally or don't buy them because I don't have the money to, in both scenarios the artist fails to profit from their hard work. Having fans hoping to eventually buy your music is no more going to put food on the artist's plate then having fans pirate their music is. Thus this solution is a loss for the artist as much as piracy is, or in language and logic you should grasp your solution is theft. Your solution is theft. Your solution is theft!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
      It's simple. Make a copy of a file in your computer.
      
      OMG STEALING
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ryan, 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
      Repeating something brainless doesn't make it true.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - dreddsnik, 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
      " Piracy is stealing. "
      
      No, it's not.
      
      Unless we're talking about boats boarding and raiding other boats on the ocean, no, it's just not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:31pm
  
  Re: boys will be boys
  "you boys at Techdirt seem to like to argue just for the sake of it"
  
  Yet, the first thing you do is to attack people for things they've never claimed.
  
  "the simple point that you can't admit to is that piracy is illegal"
  
  In fact, most comments and articles here argue the exact opposite - they say that while it's not legal, it's happening and it's not going away, and there's far better ways of dealing with it than the pathetic, counter-productive attempts made thus far by the industry. Attempts that not only fail completely to stop piracy, they actually encourage it, while stunting new business models that would make it irrelevant.
  
  Interesting, isn't it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:51pm
  
  Re: boys will be boys
  Piracy is illegal?!
  
  *Gasp*
  
  Better go call Somalia then! Tell them to stop doing illegal activities!
  
  Or were you talking about file sharing?
  
  Yeaahhh...
  
  No.
  
  Sharing is something that we were taught from a VERY early age to do.
  
  Also, I dunno about you, but I've borrowed DVDs and CDs without paying for them and gave them back, I loan out my DVDs so people can watch them without paying for them.
  
  OMG! I'm hurting the industry!!!
  
  Truth is, you HAVE to compete with free to stay in business when it comes to entertainment.
  
  And, it works pretty well...
  
  Steam managed to turn one of the biggest infringing countries in the world (Russia) into a gold mine of profit, simply by offering something better than the "pirates" were offering.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Audrey, 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:35pm
    
    Re: Re: boys will be boys
    Pirates live in Somalia? (yeah, I'm new here...) Somalia is a war torn, lawless country in constant violation of human rights. so pirates living in Somalia makes a lot of sense to me. thanks for letting me know that piracy is alive and well in Somalia. Hey! lets all move to Somalia and enjoy a safe life there where we can sit around and download music legally without a conscience. Then we can all get wasted and rape and pillage. Groovy.
    
    I'd like to introduce myself and say to all you delicious tech dirtbags: Piracy sucks. it's stealing. And I can disagree with ALL OF YOU, ALL DAY about it and not get tired of my same block headed, non-esoteric, non-tech savvy, non-flight-into-the-infinitity-of-the-internet tech la la la. Why can I disagree, with my same unending, uninformed, infuriating, boring statement for hours? It's simple: It's stealing. I'm simplistic because I'm right. You're wrong. It's stealing.
    
    What Emily admitted to was brave to admit, but wrong to do. It's stealing.
    
    But all your ideas are elegant-- very well versed in your circular jargon. Lovely, really. I can see you've thought a lot about it and your intellectual minds have cut you off from your heart-- cut you off from what's deep in your gut... a simple precious moment of human decency.
    
    And no doubt!! you would certainly win on High School debate team. I give in, since all you boys like to argue so much, I thought I'd join in on the fun a little and leave you with this: It's stealing. It's stealing. Neener neener neener.
    I'm outta here, Mike (and tech groupies)... you can all drift off together on your own little self-righteous boat to Somalia. Best of luck to you and your soul sucking cause. Mwah!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - silverscarcat (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
      wow... You... You are...
      
      Wow...
      
      You sure changed MY opinion of you.
      
      Piracy is theft?
      
      What's being stolen if I download something?
      
      Nothing. Nothing at all. The original is still there, thus nothing's missing and thus no theft occurred.
      
      "And I can disagree with ALL OF YOU, ALL DAY about it and not get tired of my same block headed, non-esoteric, non-tech savvy, non-flight-into-the-infinitity-of-the-internet tech la la la. Why can I disagree, with my same unending, uninformed, infuriating, boring statement for hours? It's simple: It's stealing. I'm simplistic because I'm right. You're wrong."
      
      Wow, what a way to sound mature. *Golf clap* Good to see that the 14 year olds in the audience have such a high standard of debate.
      
      Let's give her a round of applause, shall we?
      
      "But all your ideas are elegant-- very well versed in your circular jargon. Lovely, really. I can see you've thought a lot about it and your intellectual minds have cut you off from your heart-- cut you off from what's deep in your gut... a simple precious moment of human decency."
      
      *Laughs* That's funny. precious moment of human decency?
      
      Come back here and claim that when copyright laws make sense and we don't have that or patent trolls taking people to court for such minor matters.
      
      "And no doubt!! you would certainly win on High School debate team. I give in, since all you boys like to argue so much, I thought I'd join in on the fun a little and leave you with this: It's stealing. It's stealing. Neener neener neener."
      
      Again, let's give this per-pubescent girl a round of applause for finding this website and trying to troll all of us.
      
      After all, she managed to get permission from her mommy and daddy to post here.
      
      *Golf clap*
      
      When you grow up and can wear big girl pants, maybe you can realize that copying is not theft.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - dreddsnik, 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:38pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
      " It's stealing. "
      
      umm, no . It's not.
      
      Repeating the lie more often will NOT make it true.
      
      " I'm outta here, Mike (and tech groupies)... you can all drift off together on your own little self-righteous boat to Somalia. Best of luck to you and your soul sucking cause. Mwah!!! "
      
      -- horrible Bill Murray imitiation voce --
      " I'm gonna miss that guy. "
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 7:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
      Honestly, after reading that, I have to ask if you're off your meds, and how this elusive reality of your's is. Back here, on Earth? We have definitions of things that are pretty well standard and accepted. You want to talk about legalities, but legally speaking file-sharing, while illegal, is not theft. It's infringement. Theft is a criminal situation. Copying a song is civil. If you cannot separate the two and live in this reality, then yes, you are going to be ridiculed left, right and center.
      
      Cheers
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
      Why can I disagree, with my same unending, uninformed, infuriating, boring statement for hours? It's simple: It's stealing. I'm simplistic because I'm right. You're wrong. It's stealing.
      
      I can see you've thought a lot about it and your intellectual minds have cut you off from your heart-- cut you off from what's deep in your gut... a simple precious moment of human decency.
      
      Audrey:
      
      Ok, you want simple? You want emotional, gut-level arguments? I can play.
      
      Copyright is stealing. It is the stealing of precious knowledge and culture and locking it up for the exploitation of those rich or ruthless enough. Copying is freedom from the shackles of exploitation. Copying is the civil disobedience that will free our minds.
      
      Copyright is theft. That is simplistic, and I'm right. Take your copyright soul-sucking exploitation. I don't want it, and am proud of it. "Neener" that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JEDIDIAH, 20 Jun 2012 @ 8:10am
      
      Variation on the toddler mentality.
      No. It's not stealing, it's copying.
      
      Refusing to make morally relevant distinction wins you no brownie points. Your lack of moral sophistication impresses no one.
      
      At least "don't copy that floppy" has some honesty to it.
      
      Lying to make a moral argument kind of defeats the point.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - trollificus (profile), 23 Jun 2012 @ 8:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
      Bad trolling.
      
      The "I'm a simple-minded dumb girl and even I understand..." troll is one thing, but nobody's going to believe you're unaware that there is actual piracy going on off the coast of Somalia.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Beech, 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:51pm
  
  Re: boys will be boys
  You obviously haven't been here long. If I had to boil down the editors' position it would be something like, "Piracy is very very bad naughty, however, it cannot be stopped, and therefore the marketplace must adjust in order to compensate for it and profit in spite of it."
  
  It's kind of like saying "hurricanes are morally and ethically unjustified and should not be allowed." You won't find many who disagree that hurricanes are great. But no matter how many laws you try to pass, come hurricane season there will be hurricanes regardless. So demonizing those who suggest you hurricane-proof your house to brace against the oncoming storm as being "Pro-hurricane" and talking about how nicely your house is decorated won't do much come the next storm.
  
  Also, arguing is awesome fun! That's why debate class is an elective in high school and not what happens in detention.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:08pm
  
  Re: boys will be boys
  If sharing is illegal and immoral why do we teach that in kindergarden to children?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:25pm
  
  Re: boys will be boys
  the simple point that you can't admit to is that piracy is illegal and morally unethical, no matter how much you twist it with broken logic.
  
  No one here disagrees that copyright infringement is illegal. There is disagreement, however, even among the Techdirt community, about whether it is unethical, and whether a creator (or the corporation that funded the creator) should have monopoly control over an infinitely copyable creation. Some at Techdirt think copyright is ok, some think it is good idea and just current laws are out-of-whack, and some of us think it needs to be scrapped altogether.
  
  You can be a "simple minded girl" all you want, but the Techdirt community is not simple, I am not simple, and my ideas about copyrights are not either.
  
  In general I see that copyrights and patents are wrong. Why? Imagine this. In the near future someone has created a Star Trek style replicator. It can create food at no cost, anywhere in the world. This would obviously threaten the profits of Monsanto. Are the profits of one company a good enough reason to stop this new invention from feeding the world? What if we add in all the other agri-business companies? Add thousands of farmers who can't adapt to grow specialty foods for people who want "the real thing"? Do all those companies and people deserve some kind of protection against something wonderful? The answer to me is obviously not. Now, food isn't exactly the same as knowledge, ideas, culture, and entertainment - but it is only a matter of degrees if food became as infinitely copyable as ideas and content already are. We have a wonderful invention, the Internet, that can provide all those things at little to no cost to nearly everyone on the planet. How can it be wrong to use it to do so, just because of some companies and artists who can't adapt and see reality?
  
  Hi, Audrey, my name is Josh. My position is that it is unethical and immoral to deny people something when it costs nothing to provide it to them. I would like to see your justification for why denying the world access to knowledge, ideas, content, and culture is ethical.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 22 Jun 2012 @ 4:34am
    
    Re: Re: boys will be boys
    Jesus was a pirate! He copied AND transformed! So Jesus is unethical and illegal?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Milton Freewater, 19 Jun 2012 @ 6:05pm
  
  Re: boys will be boys
  Audrey, you misread Lowery's essay pretty badly. It has nothing to do with piracy.
  
  He is saying that music access that hurts him financially is morally unethical even if it's legal. He's saying that Spotify users are no better than pirates, and that intern Emily is a "thief" even if her CD rips were legal (which they probably were).
  
  Lowery's post uses the word "steal" over and over but not because he thinks a law is being broken. He means it in the rejected panhandler sense - I see you're a fan, I need more money, I ask for it, you decline, and now I'm yelling at you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- saulgoode (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 6:55pm
  
  Re: boys will be boys
  the simple point that you can't admit to is that piracy is illegal and morally unethical, no matter how much you twist it with broken logic.
  
  To quote Eben Moglen,
  
  "If all knowledge, all culture, all art, all useful information, can be costlessly given to everyone at the same price that it is given to anyone -- if everyone can have everything, everywhere, all the time, why is it ever moral to exclude anyone from anything?
  
  "If you could make lamb chops in endless numbers by the mere pressing of a button, there would be no moral argument for hunger ever, anywhere.
  
  "I see no system of moral philosophy generated by the economy of the past that could evolve a principle to explain the moral legitimacy of denial in the presence of infinite profusion."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:56pm
  
  Re: boys will be boys
  the simple point that you can't admit to is that piracy is illegal and morally unethical
  
  The simple point that you can't admit to is that it doesn't matter if piracy is illegal and morally unethical cause it's happening no matter what so you gotta find a way to still make money rather than spending your whining days on the moral high road.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Phil, 20 Jun 2012 @ 8:12am
  
  Re: boys will be boys
  Techdirt is a dumping ground for ehtically-challenged thieves. It becomes more obvious the more time you spend here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 2:57pm

"Spotify is a trojan horse. You get hooked, and then you pay for higher quality on your mobile."

So, is he admitting that the artists may get paid twice for music through Spotify (once for streaming, once for a purchase)? Or, is he saying that it's somehow bad for people to want to relisten to music they enjoyed on Spotify in a better quality format? I don't understand this argument.

Actually, I don't understand the anti-Spotify arguments at all. They all seem to directly compare royalties from there to revenue from purchases. They assume that a streamed song is a lost sale. Bullshit.

If nothing else, this is a complete misunderstanding of how Spotify's used. In my case, I use it for 2 major reasons - previewing albums I'd like to buy (and artists whose gigs I might want to attend), and as a replacement for storing music locally. Owning an iPhone with just 16Gb, I run out of room easily, especially as I store more podcasts and apps than music. With Spotify, I can store some favourite playlists (thanks to my PAID subscription) and then stream any album I wish from their catalogue. I want to list to Alice In Chains' Dirt on the road but don't have it synced locally? No problem, I'm listening to it. It's not stored and that option is taken away from me? Tough shit, I'm listening to someone else and AIC get nothing. There's no way I'm buying something I already own just because the label don't like "only" getting a small royalty from it, when their usual revenue would be zero.

In other words, no lost sales, and the Spotify revenue is ON TOP of the sale that's already been made, not in place of it.

"It doesn�t pay to steal if you can listen instantly on Spotify and its ilk. "

My thoughts in a nutshell. When I explain Spotify to people, I ask them how long it takes for them to download an album they want to listen to, especially if they're not near their PC at the moment they want it. Then, I show them how quickly a Spotify stream starts, especially over wifi. "It's quicker and easier than piracy" is my usual refrain. No searching for a torrent, no waiting for it to download, no hoping it's a real copy and not a fake or a crappy rip.

Well, until they try to play something they're not allowed to yet because the idiot label think they'll force more sales by withholding music from Spotify, but that's another story...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- trollificus (profile), 23 Jun 2012 @ 7:30am
  
  Re:
  Maybe the reason Mike's arguments against Spotify don't hold water is that they aren't arguments against Spotify at all.
  
  Now it all makes sense!!
  
  Hell, I even really like Pandora because making up your own track lists and only listening to stuff you already have heard is so...so...early 21st century, you know?
  
  The only downside is that I keep discovering new artists whose music I want. Lowery must really hate that because, you know, internets.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jakerome (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:01pm

I just went on my own Masnickian rant
Just went on an extended rant upon seeing this posted elsewhere. Clicked over to Techdirt and BOOM, top story. I'll share it here.
-----------------------------
He lost me at,
I would suggest to you that, like so many other policies in our society, it is up to us individually to put pressure on our governments and private corporations to act ethically and fairly when it comes to artists rights.

And here's the fundamental flaw,

Rather than using our morality and principles to guide us through technological change, there are those asking us to change our morality and principles to fit the technological change�if a machine can do something, it ought to be done.

There is nothing innately "immoral" about sharing music. Or copying books, paintings or anything else. It was monkly work for centuries. 1000 years ago the concept of "stealing" a song simply didn't exist. Monks were not immoral for copying books-- after creating their copy, the original still existed! It was NEVER immoral. It isn't immoral. It's simply illegal.

Now, reproduction costs have gone from being measured in weeks of labor to seconds. Costs have dropped from thousands to hundreds to almost nothing. Production costs have been on a similar trajectory... recording an album required a record label with a million dollar studio in the 1960s. Now? I think you could pull it off for $10K.

The law has ALWAYS adjusted to reflect advances in technology, even if the underlying morality was the same. Why should today be different?

The fundamental shift in principals and morality is about who gets to control and exploit the work of an artist. The accepted norm for hudreds of years of western civilization is the artist exclusively has the right to exploit and control his/her work for a period of time. (Since the works that are are almost invariably the subject of these discussions are popular culture of one type or another, the duration of the copyright term is pretty much irrelevant for an ethical discussion.)

Wow, where to begin? The artists rights to control his/her work has always been usurped by his/her benefactor. Record labels own the copyright, not the artists. Ditto publishers. Only recently have artists (writers, photographers, musicians) on a mass scale been able to affordably produce & distribute their own work profitably to a mass audience. What a revolution! For the first time, artists are in control! The record labels want to put that genie back into the bottle, and have viciously attacked every new distribution method to arise for the past century plus. The player piano would destroy live music! The phonograph would surely be its end! Radio will be the end of it! Home taping is killing music! MP3 players are illegal and I'll sue anyone that makes one! Music lockers must be stopped (unless they can afford to hire lawyers)! Megaupload is a pirate's den, even (especially?) if there are musicians earning money through its services. Bit Torrent! The Pirate Bay!

Big Music's answer to everything is to enlist the government in a crusade to preserve their current business model. And movies do the same thing, witness TV, VCRs and YouTube, all of which combined provide far more than half of Hollywood revenues.

Now is just about the FIRST time the artist is in control, he can produce the music he wants, and distributes it how he wants. He doesn't need the record labels anymore... and that scares the crap out of record labels and their massive legacy costs.

Oh man, it gets worse (better)!

They are the venture capitalists that raise money for these sites. They are the hardware makers that sell racks of servers to these companies. And so on and so on.

that's it! The entire world must adapt their business practices so that we don't have to change our business models as the technology around us massively advances. The sheer arrogance of such a statement! It's mind boggling.

I knew it would get to this.

So in this neighborhood people simply loot all the products from the shelves of the record store.

Nope. Nope. Nope. Making a duplicate copy while leaving the original untouched and unchanged is in no way equivalent to taking a physical good that requires considerable expense to replace.

A better analogy? Little Johnny makes a drawing in his Kindergarten class. Little Marie sees Johnny's drawing and draws the same thing. If you were Marie's teacher, what would you do?

1) Praise Marie for making such a great drawing;
2) Scold Marie for committing copyright infringement, brand her a filthy pirate and suggest to Johnny's parents that they sue Marie's parents for $150,000 per infraction.

If you answered (2), congratulations, you have a future working for the RIAA!

The internet is full of stories from artists detailing just how little they receive from Spotify.

Which is, of course, dwarfed by the number of musicians (excluding songwriters) who have received more than $0 from radio stations. Heck, record labels PAY the radio stations to play their music! So what's his point?

You could also write your Congressman and Senator and suggest they come up with some way to divert the flow of advertising money back to the artists.

Aye, there's the crux. We need to enlist the government to support our industry since the legacy players refuse to modify their business model to adapt to changing market conditions & technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 7:32pm
  
  Re: I just went on my own Masnickian rant
  And I stopped reading when you pulled out the nonsensical analogies that you buffoons always pull out without fail.
  
  And you wonder why after so many years your cause has gone nowhere but slowly down the toilet bowl...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 8:13pm
    
    Re: Re: I just went on my own Masnickian rant
    *mirror*
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jakerome (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:05pm
    
    Re: Re: I just went on my own Masnickian rant
    Absolutely agree. Whereas wholesale looting is EXACTLY like creating a new copy. Which is why all religious, political and moral systems have always treated those acts exactly the same.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Watchit (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 10:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: I just went on my own Masnickian rant
      In my religion copying even one sentence from anybody else is punishable by stoning, That way we are always original, f8ss6925ho8a67f.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - trollificus (profile), 23 Jun 2012 @ 7:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: I just went on my own Masnickian rant
        In my religion, we have to make up our own religion!! Using words not used in my fellow *IAAists' religions!
        
        Or we sue each other. Narrow indeed is the path, my friends...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:06pm

Mike, if you can't find anything worth commenting about, you don't understand the debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:12pm
  
  Re:
  What's the debate?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Watchit (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 11:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    What is Life?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:35pm
  
  Re:
  Go on then, explain how he's wrong...
  
  Oh, you're another AC commenter who can't actually argue any of the points raised, so you just try to imply there's more to the story, while mysteriously failing to even hint at what that might be. What a surprise.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dirtcrumb, 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:16pm

Oh, ye naive technocrats
I'm so sick of facile, naive futurism and capitalism. Music as you've come to know and love it was funded by massive consumer spending. If you don't like or appreciate music that has been created or influenced by the 20th century model of having massive cash influxes fueling the support and promotion of bands (if not necessarily their immediate financial well-doing), then you're off the hook.

Otherwise, you're just like any other peasant in a Western nation: benefiting out of a system where the money's been bled out for further corporate enrichment (broadband and tech companies get your money; artists do not) and acting like it's just gonna get better once there's truly no cultural support (including money) for anything.

Again, if you don't listen to music or care about it, or if you are a musical traditionalist, this is a non-issue. But as it stands, our current shitty system, money is air. Without it, you're creating things in a vacuum. Great software may be made by hermits, but art tends to die without criticism and open air.

Here's my question: if you had to, because of a legal or technological environment, pay as much for media as you do for other things that are sold at similar markups, how much would your internet access be worth to you? Would you stop listening to music in protest, or would you, say, buy a cheaper monthly plan that includes subsidized rates for broadband as you are essentially just using their network to access legal content, and then pay the artists in the same way that you pay everyone else for everything that you use unless someone gives it to you or you make it entirely yourself?

I've already heard enough shitty "retro" music from the past 10 years of defunded music to say that being pro-technological innovation and technocratically amoral are really degenerative to, uh, what are supposed to be some of the benefits of capitalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Leigh Beadon (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:23pm
  
  Re: Oh, ye naive technocrats
  did you just say that being pro-technological innovation is degenerative to the benefits of capitalism?
  
  um. ok...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Benjo (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:29pm
    
    Re: Re: Oh, ye naive technocrats
    Sounds to me like he/she is a music snob. I have a coworker down the hall that rants every other week about the superb quality of vinyl, and how the songs on his RAID array of SSDs sounds better than the SAME file played off of an HDD. Blows my mind.
    
    Trying to qualify the effect of technology on the music industry based on your personal music preference is probably a bad idea if you want anyone else to care about what you are saying.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:31pm
  
  Re: Oh, ye naive technocrats
  Music as you've come to know and love it was funded by massive consumer spending. If you don't like or appreciate music that has been created or influenced by the 20th century model of having massive cash influxes fueling the support and promotion of bands (if not necessarily their immediate financial well-doing), then you're off the hook.
  
  You do realize that we are talking about business models that do an even better job funding music, right?
  
  Otherwise, you're just like any other peasant in a Western nation: benefiting out of a system where the money's been bled out for further corporate enrichment (broadband and tech companies get your money; artists do not)
  
  You think it's a zero sum game. You're wrong.
  
  Here's my question: if you had to, because of a legal or technological environment, pay as much for media as you do for other things that are sold at similar markups, how much would your internet access be worth to you? Would you stop listening to music in protest, or would you, say, buy a cheaper monthly plan that includes subsidized rates for broadband as you are essentially just using their network to access legal content, and then pay the artists in the same way that you pay everyone else for everything that you use unless someone gives it to you or you make it entirely yourself?
  
  Why should we deal in false dichotomy hypotheticals that make no sense? Why not strive for a world that leaves the majority better off, rather than limit ourselves?
  
  I've already heard enough shitty "retro" music from the past 10 years of defunded music to say that being pro-technological innovation and technocratically amoral are really degenerative to, uh, what are supposed to be some of the benefits of capitalism.
  
  If you're listening to shitty retro music, you really ought to get yourself some better filters. There's so much awesome new music being produced these days. I pity folks who seem to think they have to listen to crap. How bizarre.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - openfreetard@exploitationeconomy.com, 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:40pm
    
    Re: Re: Oh, ye naive technocrats
    *** You do realize that we are talking about business models that do an even better job funding music, right? ***
    
    ha! like the pirate bay?
    
    you think Amanda Palmer is the only artist to make a million dollars? too funny...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Leigh Beadon (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Oh, ye naive technocrats
      ha! like the pirate bay?
      
      Uh-oh. Heads up folks: this thread is no longer worth reading. Lowery's programming has reached the end of its algorithm that comes up with moderately unique-sounding permutations of the same three statements, and now it looks like it's about to hit the well-documented bug where it just starts shouting something nonsensical about the Pirate Bay over and over again. Only qualified technicians should interact with Lowery from this point onwards, and frankly even they should probably just go get a beer or something. He's being replaced by newer models anyway.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Oh, ye naive technocrats
      No, i was more thinking about the announcement by MU whereby it was actually trying to compensate people, and had been trying to do so for many years, shortly before, oh WHOOPS! ICE KILLED THAT IDEA!
      
      And no, Palmer isn't the onyl one to make a million bucks. She is, however, the first one to give an apporximate breakdown of costings to her fans in such a way as to be as clear as possible before any expenditures are made.
      
      It is, once again, another avenue to making money.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - trollificus (profile), 23 Jun 2012 @ 7:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, ye naive technocrats
        Should it be our goal, in structuring media distribution, to ensure that "artists" (many of whom make crappy, totally derivative, unoriginal noise, by my own standards) all make a million dollars. I, for one, will not be sad to see rock stars with enough money to pay for totally trashing hotels at every stop, and to buy enough drugs to short circuit their own productivity.
        
        More importantly, should it be the goal of any real "artist" to achieve the rarified level of "ROCK SUPERSTAR" and multi-millionaire?? Because that's been the carrot the labels have used for years. Not "we'll help you make your music, promote it and you'll make some money" but "we'll take all your contract bonus in recording and A&R fees, neglect to promote your music and pay you a pittance per sale BUT!! You MIGHT become Led Zeppelin!"
        
        NOT a model whose loss I will mourn.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Oh, ye naive technocrats
      quite possibly...
      Dan Bull's last release made the charts, how about yours?
      The whole thing was available on TPB, still is, and *GASP* he made money.
      Maybe the difference is he connects with his fans rather than argues down to them how they are thieving bastards ripping the gold fillings from his teeth.
      
      Regrettably I have not a single clue who you are, nor the desire to bother to find out. I more than likely will look, just to make sure that none of my time or money is wasted on whatever drivel it is you produce.
      See when an artist has complete disrespect for the consumer, I stop caring about them.
      
      Enjoy that last million... its very possible it will be the last you ever earn. Consumers don't like entitled brats calling them names for daring to try and share something they like, and there are so many more choices in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
      
      But hey your precious precious property will be safe, because no one will be there to hear it. If a career crashes and burns on the internet... does it make a sound?
      
      Oh I figured out who you are... go take the skinheads bowling and leave the internet to the rest of us.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Oh, ye naive technocrats
      " ha! like the pirate bay? "
      
      That crazy place that got an unsigned artist on the Pop Charts ?
      
      That's just crazy talk.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 11:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Oh, ye naive technocrats
      you think Amanda Palmer is the only artist to make a million dollars?
      
      So if Amanda Palmer isn't the only artist to make a million dollars, and by extension, more artists are making money like her, then what the fuck is the problem?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike42 (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:42pm
    
    Re: Re: Oh, ye naive technocrats
    Mike, you paid him too much heed by actually replying to his rant. All I read was, "Hey you kids! Get off my lawn!"
    And I'm over 40!
    You're right about awesome must being released constantly, too. FOR FREE, even. Creative Commons rocks!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - silverscarcat (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Oh, ye naive technocrats
      You wouldn't happen to be 42 years old, would you?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Niall (profile), 22 Jun 2012 @ 4:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, ye naive technocrats
        42 is a great age!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:44pm
  
  Re: Oh, ye naive technocrats
  "I'm so sick of facile, naive futurism and capitalism. Music as you've come to know and love it was funded by massive consumer spending"
  
  You're sick of capitalism, but imply that quality music has to only be funded by... capitalism? Interesting...
  
  "But as it stands, our current shitty system, money is air. Without it, you're creating things in a vacuum"
  
  Actual artists, as opposed to the fame whores you seem to be referring to don't need money for validation. It helps, of course, but the cliche of the starving, driven artist exists for a reason.
  
  "I've already heard enough shitty "retro" music from the past 10 years of defunded music to say that being pro-technological innovation and technocratically amoral are really degenerative to, uh, what are supposed to be some of the benefits of capitalism."
  
  Ah, you're another idiot who thinks that your own personal taste defines which business models are possible, and somehow thinks that how much funding goes into a song defines its worth. You then attack capitalism while stating that music that's "defunded" is by definition crappy and attack technology for... some undefined reason.
  
  OK then...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:36pm
  
  Re: Oh, ye naive technocrats
  Was your post computer-generated?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JEDIDIAH, 20 Jun 2012 @ 8:19am
  
  Re: Oh, ye naive technocrats
  If it weren't for analog piracy, the gatekeepers of the 20th century would have kept my favorite music from that century from ever seeing the light of day.
  
  So I have a lot of trouble weeping for the gatekeepers.
  
  I hear current talent talk about how they have to do their own marketing and wonder if there's any point to the legacy gatekeepers at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:44pm

Well, I took the plunge... I read Lowery's article. I just closed the browser a few paragraphs in.

After saying (and I'm paraphrasing here), "Emily, I mean no harm and I'm not trying to embarrass you..." he then goes on to basically call her a thief, despite the fact that she quite clearly says (with the exception of a few songs from many many years ago in her youth) she doesn't download anything illegally (e.g. through p2p, cyber lockers, etc).

He also attempts the listen to me cause I'm an authority. "Emily, I'm a teacher at a prestigious university and I deal with thieves like you on a daily basis justifying their thievery with blah blah blah and blah blah blah." (Again, paraphrasing here, but go read what he wrote and tell me I'm off the mark. I dare you. Not YOU, AC, who worships the gospel at Lowery's feet. But "you", which is any reasonable person willing to have an open mind and discuss things like an adult.)

He then goes on I don't know what kind of thing giving examples of two people who have died/gone insane. The cause... piracy! Yep. I laughed at that point and was like, "Okay, well this guy obviously doesn't want to have anything even remotely resembling a reasonable discussion, so I'm outta here." And I just closed the browser.

Seriously. He basically laid medical bill debt and a suicide at the feet of pirates. At that point, even assuming I started with taking you seriously, well... you lost me.

I think if he was a bit more reasonable he would honestly be a good person to try and have a serious discussion with. But alas, he's like that "how much does the pirate bay give artists?! oh that's right nothing!" AC. His mind is made up, facts as he feels suitable are deemed fit for use (any evidence to the contrary is ignored/nonsense), but by and large everyone is a thief (except the labels, despite the plethora, nowhere near miniscule amount, of tales to the contrary) and how dare Google and the ISPs get to make money for allowing such petty, and obvious to all (except those with blind eyes), theft to take place!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 7:56pm
  
  Re:
  Facts are troublesome things, aren't they?
  
  You're so used to getting the one-sided Google/Masnick boilerplate that you couldn't comprehend it when a little reality was introduced to your brain...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 19 Jun 2012 @ 8:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Away troll. Away with you.
    
    There were no facts in that... whatever it was. He starts off by calling a girl a pirate despite the fact that she clearly is not one. And then it only gets worse and more ridiculous from there. I'm sorry, but laying a death at the feet of piracy is not even remotely close to being a troublesome thing, at least not to me. Particularly because it is not a fact. As someone else said already elsewhere in these comments, that was an attempt at an emotional response and was quite sad in that it cheapens the loss of a friend.
    
    I'm not used to getting the one-sided Google/Masnick boilerplate. Why? Because I for one form my own opinions after looking at all the data available to me and I do look elsewhere besides Techdirt. And all the data clearly says that piracy is not as big a problem as it's made out to be, and that if it is a problem it's only one to those who refuse to change and listen to the wants of the market (and free stuff is most definitely not a want of the market; however stuff ASAP and with no restrictions of any kind at a reasonable price is very much what the market wants)/people who can't compete with anything else (because there's so much free entertainment out there (as in free webcomics/games/music/content) and there are no vast piracy related conspiracies being run by Google.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Niall (profile), 22 Jun 2012 @ 4:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Far easier to blame piracy than oh, idiot charging policies for healthcare that should be free!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Eponymous Coward, 20 Jun 2012 @ 1:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yup, us updas are killing music one artist at a time! By the way are you also a musician? >�)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2012 @ 1:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Fail: it's pirates not updas(?)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 8:16pm
  
  Re:
  Agreed. The opening statements that he was not shaming or admonishing Emily were quicky revealed to be a case of "doth protest too much."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aaron T (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:52pm

Techdirt vs Thetrichordist
On Thetrichordist, if you point out a counter argument they don't approve your post and it goes to /dev/null so all the comments are self congratatory/supportive.

On Techdirt, if you point out a counter argument, people try to explain why you're wrong, you then claim you're just a "dumb girl" and then run away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:22pm
  
  Re: Techdirt vs Thetrichordist
  Marketplace of ideas. The more voices that are allowed, the greater the market.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RadialSkid (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 6:07pm
  
  Re: Techdirt vs Thetrichordist
  That's one sure sign to tell real information from propaganda: See which side attempts to cover up dissent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 8:36pm
  
  Re: Techdirt vs Thetrichordist
  From what I've seen, dissenting comments are approved on Thetrichordist, but only when someone feels like pairing it with a rebuttal. No dissenting commenter will ever get the last word on there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:17pm
  
  Re: Techdirt vs Thetrichordist
  She'd already said that she was leaving before the "dumb girl" remark got tossed out which I didn't like. Actually I hope Audrey comes back. While I disagree with her once she gets by the "copying is theft" line she makes a whole lot of sense. Heck it's tossed around enough that it's easy to start there.
  
  Which is more than Lowery does. Filled with factual and moral errors as his posts often are.
  
  And you're right about the censorship Lowrey's site. It's rampant.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:54pm
    
    Re: Re: Techdirt vs Thetrichordist
    And you're right about the censorship Lowrey's site. It's rampant.
    
    This is even more hilarious when you consider that hurricane head/Phil/googlypants (Really? "googlypants"?) has a habit of insisting that Techdirt's hiding of posts is "so very SOPA of you". At the very least, Techdirt lets anyone post.
    
    If "hiding posts" is SOPA-level censorship, what about Lowery's site, eh? I think it's at least the equivalent of the Megaupload raid.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 1:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Techdirt vs Thetrichordist
      No, it's probably the rhetorical equivalent of God coming down and damning you for saying "Jesus was a man".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Aaron T (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 10:19pm
    
    Re: Re: Techdirt vs Thetrichordist
    To be fair, I explicitly refrained from using the word "censorship". It's an easy label to apply, but I'm ok with the "it's my site, I make the rules" stance. Nothing is preventing me/you from posting our comments here after all. I'll call it editorial control.
    
    Just don't pretend you're open to an honest debate when you trash all the comments you don't agree with so you don't have to respond and your readers don't have to think too hard.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Leigh Beadon (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 7:15am
    
    Re: Re: Techdirt vs Thetrichordist
    And you're right about the censorship Lowrey's site. It's rampant.
    
    Agreed with commenter above - it's not censorship.
    
    It says a lot about who they are over at Trichordist, and how weak they know their position is, and how frightened they are to have to actually defend it, and how they only way they can look like they're winning the debate is by controlling the venue — it says a lot about all that, and we can certainly judge them for it.
    
    But it's not censorship. Any more than our flagged & hidden comments here on techdirt are "censorship" as some crotchety ACs like to claim. In fact, it's the opposite: it's a great example of free speech. The ONE thing I agreed with in that whole Lowery post was the update where he defends his right to screen comments. Again, I think it demonstrates that he knows how pathetic his argument is - but it is indeed well within his rights.
    
    In the end, the fact that a community can filter and organize comments according to its own standards is exactly what free speech is all about. In this situation, forcing someone to display comments they don't want to would actually be the censorship - as counterintuitive as that might sound at first. Free speech is as much about the right to choose not to say whatever you want as it is about the right to say whatever you want.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - art guerrilla (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 10:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Techdirt vs Thetrichordist
      *not* CENSORING = CENSORSHIP ? ? ?
      okay, can't let that go by unchallenged...
      1. *at least* there wasn't the general awful (and i mean offal) 'fact' that only governments can 'censor'...
      2. *but*, i will NOT let this mis-understanding of what CENSORSHIP is just lay there unmolested...
      IT DOES NOT MATTER if it is 'your sandbox', it is STILL CENSORSHIP...
      YES, you have the right to shut up/kick out someone you don't like and/or disagree with from 'your house'...
      AND THAT IS STILL CENSORSHIP ! ! !
      it *may* be 'justifiable' CENSORSHIP, it is almost certainly 'legal'; BUT it is STILL censorship...
      3. *that* is one of the major problems i have with a LOT of websites, especially political discussion sites, where people are CENSORED for ALL KINDS of arbitrary 'reasons'...
      those people are NOT practicing 'free speech', but they will not cop to that, EVER; it is always -you know- 'necessary moderation', blah blah blah
      NO, it IS CENSORSHIP ! ! !
      (whether it is 'justified' or not, is another issue... personally, i think CENSORSHIP is NEVER 'justified', but that's me, i tend to like my freedoms...)
      4. AND, that is why ALL 'reasons' for CENSORSHIP are wrong: they are all -ultimately- ARBITRARY, there is NO rational basis for CENSORSHIP; OTHER THAN *SOMEONE* (with power) does not like what you said... THAT IS THE ONE AND ONLY 'REASON' PEOPLE CENSOR...
      5. there are no such things as 'bad' words, there are no such things as 'bad' ideas; there are only people (with power) who don't like what you say...
      6. i have NO RESPECT for sites which -purportedly- are there to encourage discussion and dissent, and then they proceed to squelch and CENSOR said discussion: that is a person who either does not know what 'free speech' entails, OR, they DON'T CARE...
      the ONLY 'free speech' they care about, is their's and their like-minded sheeple...
      IF YOU DO NOT SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF YOUR WORST ENEMY TO VOICE THEIR MOST DISGUSTING SPEECH, YOU DO NOT SUPPORT FREE SPEECH...
      it is that simple, but the idea of it is so anathema to most people, that they -in fact- do NOT support free speech while claiming they do !!!
      art guerrilla
      aka ann archy
      artguerrilla at windstream dot net
      eof
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Leigh Beadon (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 10:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt vs Thetrichordist
        Sorry, you're wrong.
        
        You are free to disrespect those sites, and you can quibble over the semantic use of the word "censorship", but it absolutely 100% is free speech to ignore or reject the views of others.
        
        If you want the opposition to have NO venue, if you want laws against them speaking their mind, then THAT is censorship. But if you, as a person with free speech rights, wants to have control over the discourse in your own arena, that is not censorship - it is you exercising your rights.
        
        Think of this: occasionally we get emails from angry people DEMANDING that we post their response to something here on Techdirt. But we don't, unless we think it is a very good response. Is that censorship on our parts? Does that show we are against free speech? Those people are free to post their response on any of the many forums available to them online, and we are free to respond if we want.
        
        So you're saying that there should be no such thing as a blog or a newspaper or any other organized source ever. Only open forums. Because absolutely any source like that operates as a curator, choosing what they want to post based on a variety of factors - and one of those factors is often a unified view on certain contentious issues. You seem to be saying that, unless every single blog and tv station and newspaper and source of any kind throws its doors open to every single person who wants to be featured in it, then they are all participating in censorship. That's ridiculous.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2012 @ 11:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt vs Thetrichordist
        Yeah, it's not censorship, it's an unethical theft of potential speech in one particular space out of many spaces that one can speak in, er, on.
        
        My brain hurts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Niall (profile), 22 Jun 2012 @ 4:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt vs Thetrichordist
        Grammar and writing styles want to be 'free' of being your 'bitch', too :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - trollificus (profile), 23 Jun 2012 @ 8:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt vs Thetrichordist
        Yes. there are bad ideas.
        
        At least, if you want ideas to be useful. Then you have to differentiate between "bad" and "good" ideas.
        
        Most people find that the "good" (useful) ideas are the TRUE ones. If you don't believe there are actually bad ideas, please be the first to drive over that bridge built of balsa wood and wishful thinking.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
skinny poppy (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:14pm

Wish in one hand, crap in the other, and see which fills up faster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Milton Freewater, 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:35pm

Upon reflection, the most important thing about Lowery's article
Upon reflection, the most important thing about Lowery's article ... and the commenters on his site as well as NPRs ... is that they outed themselves.

"Illegal" is irrelevant to them.

Emily's ripped copies were most likely legal. Spotify users are legitimate. Mix CDs could be fair use and are certainly a beloved tradition that musicians have always embraced. Yet Lowery and his supporters are as angry and puffed up as if she admitted to shoplifting.

They don't care if your music access is legal or illegal. They simply think you owe them money because they want it. That is literally Lowery's entire thesis.

Have you ever been aggressively panhandled? I once had a woman screaming at me for a block that God was going to judge me for my sins. The sin was that I didn't stop in the dark alley where she and her shadowy friend wanted to ask me a question. These guys mean the same thing when they yell "theft." It's not a rational argument about a civil contract anymore.

P.S. Lowery is rejecting critical comments on his board.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 5:41pm
  
  Re: Upon reflection, the most important thing about Lowery's article
  That's a terrible way to run a marketplace of ideas.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beech, 19 Jun 2012 @ 6:09pm

New Prohibition
The Great Piracy Debate reminds me a LOT of what i learned about Prohibition. Here's some wikipedia quotes about prohibition.

"By using pressure politics on legislators, the Anti-Saloon League achieved the goal of nationwide prohibition during World War I"

"The sale of alcohol was illegal, but alcoholic drinks were still widely available. People also kept private bars to serve their guests. Large quantities of alcohol were smuggled in from Canada, overland, by sea along both ocean coasts, and via the Great Lakes."

"Congress passed the "Volstead Act" on October 28, 1919, but most large cities were uninterested in enforcing the legislation, leaving an understaffed federal service to go after bootleggers. Although alcohol consumption did decline, there was a dramatic rise in organized crime in the larger cities, which now had a cash crop that was in high demand.

"The repeal movement was started by a wealthy Republican, Pauline Sabin, who said that prohibition should be repealed because it made the US a nation of hypocrites and undermined its respect for the rule of law."

See the connection? A minor but vocal segment of the population pressures government into passing laws. Said laws cannot be enforced, and the common man has no respect for them. People circumvent the law in various ways. Eventually "organized crime" (for filesharing maybe think the 'Megaconspiracy'?)gets involved. It becomes clear that the laws are silly and undermine respect for the rule of law.

Hey, any of that sound familiar? Maybe a little pertinent to the discussion at hand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RadialSkid (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 6:10pm

From the end of his article:

EDITOR�S UPDATE. 12:42 PM Central 6/19/2012 . Trichordist does not allow any anonymous posting. We generally like to verify people are using their real name or an identity that we can track back to a real person. We think think this keep the tone of the debate more honest and civilized. But it takes a lot of work. This post has gone completely viral and we are getting thousands of visitors a minute. While we normally enjoy our readers comments it�s not possible to verify and moderate this volume of comments. We are just 4 guys doing this part time when we aren�t doing our other jobs. If you feel like this somehow infringes your freedom of speech I would remind you that you have the entire world wide web to share your opinions about this article. We will from time to time continue to randomly select comments based on our personal whims for publication. We will also respond thoughtfully, nicely, rudely, absurdly or however we feel at the time. That�s our freedom of expression.

Big nuts shrivel fast, don't they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 19 Jun 2012 @ 6:32pm
  
  Re:
  "If you feel like this somehow infringes your freedom of speech I would remind you that you have the entire world wide web to share your opinions about this article. We will from time to time continue to randomly select comments based on our personal whims for publication. We will also respond thoughtfully, nicely, rudely, absurdly or however we feel at the time. That�s our freedom of expression."
  
  In other words, if you don't like that we refuse to allow comments that attempt/do prove us wrong, share any point of view contrary to that which we have, or any other thing which we do not like you can get bent and go elsewhere. What do you think this is? A free speech club? No. This is MY website and I will write what I want on my website and anything that is contrary to what I want here will not be allowed. If you don't like it, kindly, fuck off. Regarding comments that do pass moderation and get posted, well... they agree with me and support my position. Which is why they're allowed. Tough cookies to everyone else. And I have the right to do so because this is my website.
  
  I believe that about sums things up regarding that update. Much like the MPAA blog. Dissenting opinions or those questioning us will not be allowed to post and such things will not be tolerated. Well, at least Lowery is in good (or better said, horrible) company.
  
  Yet, Mike is the evil one. Of course Mike is willing to actually debate things and allow for differences of opinions to be shared on his site. True freedom of speech and expression right there. Cue the shills who cry "censorship" (despite the repeated and lengthy explanations to the contrary) whenever they come here flaming and/or insulting and get their comments reported. Same shit, different day.
  
  Oh that Lowery. He sure is a piece of work. A real "fuckface" (a reference some of you who may be new might not get, I'm sure someone will post a link for those who are curious though) if there ever was one. Ooops. Did I just say that out loud? Well, I guess that's my right to free speech and freedom of expression.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:44pm
    
    Re: Re:
    LOL at you referring to Masnick's pro-piracy propaganda as "debate".
    
    I don't call selective use of data, lies via omission and outright fabrication as "debate".
    
    The tech community doesn't give a flying fuck about "innovation" unless it means them getting rich. There are no greedier lot on the planet. IP is dangerous to companies like Google because they make money off using other people's IP without compensation. Masnick, the EFF, etc are paid to defend this gutter, parasitic "business model".
    
    Everyone knows this, and has known it for a long time.
    
    You people are too funny.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 10:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yeah, because selective use of data, lies via omission and outright fabrication was never used by the RIAA and MPAA, such as when they insisted that 45% of students pirated and later backpedalled to say it was probably more like 15%, sued innocent people on the basis that "when you catch fish with a driftnet, you get dolphins", and claimed that everyone from supermarkets to florists to firemen relied on IP and patents. You think everyone on the side of IP maximism are all angels, don't you?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 10:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Everyone knows this, and has known it for a long time.
      
      Right, that's why only AC jackasses like yourself bring it up.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - drew (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 10:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No. The debate is what's happening here in the comments. And in all kinds of other blogs and fora all over the web. Some with a pro-copyright, some with an anti-copyright and some with a huh-how-the-hell-did-I-end-up-talking-about-copyright approach.
      Except on the trichordist...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 1:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Most people understand that TD has a bias. You're tryign to conflate two differnet things. Again. The ironmy is that the real thieves try everything in their power to stop people, y'know, debating.
      
      The RIAA and MPAA blogs disallow comments: they're newsfeeds, not blogs.
      
      thethrchordist sometimes has valid points, but comments that can lead to an actual debate disappear. I made a post (anonymously, for once) about how IP law could be a positive force for the music industry, if it were streamlined and restricted.
      
      Piracy is often (but not always) a business-model issue, rather than a criminality issue. People are trying to legistlate altruistic behaviours. IUf you think for a moment, you'll understand why that is not a good thing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 1:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "The tech community doesn't give a flying fuck about "innovation" unless it means them getting rich."
      
      I'm not getting rich but I love the innovation that's happening and the new options it brings me, from videogames so good they would have been mere fantasies 30 years ago to a phone that allows me to carry around hours of legally purchased music, a camera, a GPS and all sorts of other things in my pocket. The tech industry has given me more than the music industry ever will, although I still buy music despite the moronic attempts you make to block me from doing so.
      
      Sadly, morons like you can't think of any way to make money other than by selling plastic discs, and the bottom fell out of that market at about the time Sega stopped producing games consoles. Sega managed to find a way to continue their business without clinging to 1988 and whining that their Genesis console sales aren't the same as they once were, why can't you?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ophelia Millais (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 12:40am
  
  Re:
  Lowery is one guy, but loves referring to himself as "we", doesn't he?
  
  We think think this keep the tone of the debate more honest and civilized.
  
  It probably does keep out the riff-raff, but by excluding anonymous commenters who make good points and engage in honest and civilized debate, I "think think this keep" the Trichordist in a state of "intellectual dishonesty", to borrow one of "their" favorite phrases.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digitari, 19 Jun 2012 @ 6:12pm

Re: Copying is stealing
Dear Audrey,

Ms Hepburn would like her name back, you little thief
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dirkmaster (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 6:55pm

We are not the ones who broke the model first
The music industry wants it both ways, and that ain't gonna fly. They want us to BUY the music, but we don't OWN the music. How many times do they think is the right number to buy an album. Hmmmm, let me see, being an old fart, I've bought the same album on vinyl, 8-track, cassette, and CD. Each time, for almost the exact same amount, around $12 - 15 dollars. So when did I own it? See, they don't think I do. And so I need to buy it again on iTunes, and then on the next format when they design it. So music companies want to have someone else write once, and we pay often. Do they really think that's going to work? I say f' that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JEDIDIAH, 20 Jun 2012 @ 8:30am
  
  The evils of the back catalog.
  Yes. This is a key problem for the industry. They have lost a means of inducing artificial demand within the market. We have reached a point where new formats are highly unlikely to gain any traction. Once you had the first digital format, that was likely to be the terminal format as that could be transformed into any new standard that might come after it.
  
  A file can outlast the media it originally came one.
  
  Once you've bought it you have it and you never have to pay for that particular bit of content ever again.
  
  The resurrection of the vinyl single in digital form just adds to the hurt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Karl (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 8:44pm

Albini weighs in
Steve Albini (a man who knows more about the music industry than ten David Lowerys [Loweries?]) responds:

http://www.electricalaudio.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=59318&p=1511218#p1511 218
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Karl (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 8:44pm

Albini weighs in
Steve Albini (a man who knows more about the music industry than ten David Lowerys [Loweries?]) responds:

http://www.electricalaudio.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=59318&p=1511218#p1511 218
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:00pm
  
  Re: Albini weighs in
  Easy for a trust fund rich guy like Steve Albini to feign indignation at what was written.
  
  He's been known for years as a complete asshole. And one that wouldn't know a good tune if it slapped him in his ultimate-dork face.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 1:17am
    
    Re: Re: Albini weighs in
    Yes, when you have no response to facts, go for the personal insults! Predictable...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:05pm
  
  Re: Albini weighs in
  I have no idea why this is a double post. Sorry!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BeeAitch (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 7:21pm
    
    Re: Re: Albini weighs in
    I, for one, am glad you double-posted it, as it allowed me to mark it "insightful" twice!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:21pm
  
  Re: Albini weighs in
  By the way. I'm in NYC right now. I just got back from a concert put on by eMusic here. They featured a band that is Iranian, but had to flee the country because they weren't allowed to perform rock music there. (Yellow Dogs is their name, and they're pretty good, sort of Gang of Four mixed with early-80's goth/alternative influences.)
  
  This is a lot more than any major label has done for any band, whether on their roster or not. I personally witnessed the band talk to the eMusic people (one of whom I am staying with right now). A quote, as near as I can remember: "I don't think you even realize how important it is that you are doing this. It is really saving us."
  
  These are Lowery's targets. Not pirates, not even Google (though he is an unapologetic Google-slanderer). His targets, ultimately, are businesses like eMusic, Tunecore, or CD Baby. His entire purpose is to tell up-and-coming bands that everything sucks, you won't make money, and every "new music" model that comes along is doing nothing but ripping you off.
  
  It is both factually wrong, and morally sickening. He is doing nothing but telling artists how to fail. If I were him, I would be ashamed of myself.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:49pm
    
    Re: Re: Albini weighs in
    You're as much of a lying slimeball as Masnick is.
    
    David Lowery runs a recording studio where he helps bands make art. He has worked in every step of the music business foodchain. You haven't and you never, ever, will.
    
    His targets are parasitical, no talent losers like yourself who are trying make themselves feel equal to people with actual talent, by making them serfs instead of living in a higher income bracket than you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 10:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Albini weighs in
      Whine, whine, whine. It's not even pathetic anymore.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - drew (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 10:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Albini weighs in
      Ok, that's getting the report button. Because you're contributing nothing but insults.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 11:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Albini weighs in
      And what is his cut for his "help" again?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 12:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Albini weighs in
      You're as much of a lying slimeball as Masnick is.
      
      I was quoting the guys from Yellow Dogs from memory, so I was paraphrasing. Other than that, though, everything I just said is God's honest truth.
      
      David Lowery runs a recording studio where he helps bands make art. He has worked in every step of the music business foodchain. You haven't and you never, ever, will.
      
      Here's what I've done:
      
      I worked in record stores. I booked local shows. When my friends booked shows that didn't make the house costs, I gave them hundreds out of my own pocket so that bands would get paid. I wrote music reviews in national magazines. I was the doorman at a few clubs. I ran the soundboard at several local venues.
      
      I'm also a musician myself, and have done a half-dozen U.S. tours, and performed in pretty much every music venue in Boston. My noise name is Karlheinz; come to Boston and ask around.
      
      Now, I'll admit this isn't enough in the grand scheme of things. But what has Lowery done?
      
      1. Charged artists to use his fancy studio equipment.
      
      2. Charged students tuition money to give them bad business advice, and tell them that "new business models" do nothing but rip them off, and that they would be better off on a major label in the 90's.
      
      Given all that, I've done a lot more than Lowery has ever done. Admittedly, that's not much of an accomplishment, since I'd help musicians more than Lowery does if I did nothing at all.
      
      Not that it matters. His arguments would be bullshit even if I had never heard a musical note in my entire life.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 6:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Albini weighs in
        You said once you were a nobody, and I disagreed with you.
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120511/17433718892/musicians-realizing-they-dont-need-major -labels-anymore.shtml#c1196
        I think you proved once again you are Karl, you are somebody who can give us unique insights based on your real world experiences.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 8:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Albini weighs in
        You said once you were a nobody, and I disagreed with you.
        
        And, I realized I never thanked you. So: thank you.
        
        But, if you ask anyone in the RIAA (or even A2IM), they would certainly not consider me an "inside source" or anything like that. I simply don't want to present myself as one.
        
        Besides, being a "nobody" is rather freeing. You can do whatever you want, and nobody is stepping on your balls to make it "shift more units."
        
        I probably shouldn't even mention what I do, because it doesn't matter. But it does piss me off when people think I don't know the music industry. Well, c'est la vie.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2012 @ 10:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Albini weighs in
        Don't jump to conclusions, you don't know what David Lowery has done, only what you think you know.
        He is one of the early independent alternative artists to create his own label in the "80's, worked at various full-time jobs before working in music full-time. Has a college degree in Math. Studied as a futures- trader and worked as one. Toured and created music with two bands he co-created in the last 25 years. Yes co-owned and ran a music studio and produced bands. Yes done more than a half-a-dozen cross country tours.....including his first one with REM in the 1980's. Song credits in many movies and tv shows.
        Acting credit and music in the Sundance film "River Red".
        A paper route in his teenage years, working at the local newspaper office in High School and College. Dj at his college radio station. yes guest lecturer at the
        University of Georgia and now full-time teacher in the business/music .department. Is a father, husband, brother, son, nephew, uncle ,friend and
        a damn fine human being! Has put a song out on an album for Sweet Relief a charity for musicians, and donated to this charity. Think he puts his money where his heart is! ....... s have you really done MORE than David Lowery has?????? Don't speak up if you don't have the facts!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:12pm

The solution to piracy:

Reopen Sing-Sing and send all the pirates to that lovely place in NY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:29pm
  
  Re:
  Why, that's not unrealistic at all! You know who should pay for the reopening of a prison and the housing of all those pirates?
  
  Musicians.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Karl (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 11:32pm

Lowery is a liar
But most record contracts specify royalties and advances to artists. Advances are important to understand�a prepayment of unearned royalties. Not a debt, more like a bet. The artist only has to �repay� (or �recoup�) the advance from record sales.

What he doesn't mention is that all of the recording costs are taken out of these royalties. Plus, usually, a good portion (standard is 50%) of the promotional costs. The only thing that is not taken out of artists' royalties are the physical costs of pressing a CD and printing the artwork (of course, designing the artwork might be). And, if you're signing your first contract with a label, all of the production options - producer, studio, etc - are determined by the label; diverging from their plan will cost you "points," or a percentage of your royalties.

In the end, most artists will make far less than minimum wage from their advance. In return, they lose all the rights to their music.

Secondly, by law the record label must pay songwriters (who may also be artists) something called a �mechanical royalty� for sales of CDs or downloads of the song. This is paid regardless of whether a record is recouped or not.

This is true. He does, however, leave out the fact that if the songwriter is also the artist, they will be paid only 75% of both artists' and songwriters' royalties, under a "controlled composition" clause. It's also important to realize that these royalties usually max out at 10 songs per CD. And that only 50% goes to the songwriter, the rest to the publisher (which is often, not always, the record label).

Let's say a label presses 30,000 full-length CD's. To keep it simple, we'll assume it's a solo record by a singer-songwriter (the "best-case scenario" for these sorts of royalties). The royalties from those CD's that go to the songwriter will be $10,237.50.

Now consider that if a recording artist only sells 30,000 CD's, they will earn nothing from performer royalties. This is quite literally all they will get from the label.

Oh, and sites like iTunes? They pay more for these royalties than the record labels. Oh, and those songwriter royalty revenues? They're rising, and have been for years.

Meaning that the file sharing sites could get the same license if they wanted to, at least for the songs.

This is total and complete bullshit. File sharing sites legally cannot partake of these royalty schemes.

Artists can make money on the road (or its variant "Artists are rich").

This is just conflating two different things. "Artists can make money on the road" is a statement of the undeniable fact that most artists - even those on a major label - make more money "on the road" than they do from record sales. For example, the 2004 top earner in music was Paul McCartney. How much of his money was from recording and songwriter royalties? Less than 15%. Musicians have always made money from touring, not from record sales.

I agree, however, that there is a bit too much "artists are rich" BS bandied about by the general public. But, most of the complaints are not that "artists are rich," but that "abel guys in suits are too rich." The fact that those same suits love to sue the public, or pass draconian laws, doesn't help.

If you are one of those "screw the Top 40 artists" type people, then remember this. The whole "rock star," hookers-and-blow, trashing-your-hotel-room persona? It was always a total myth. Generally speaking, even Top 40 artists work 60+ hours per week, get up at 6am, and have no time to sleep in hotel rooms, much less trash them.

The "rock star myth" is a deliberate creation of the major labels, in order to entice young wanna-be musicians into being exploited. It has no bearing in truth. The fact that this myth is now backfiring at labels is poetic justice; the fact that it's backfiring against the musicians themselves is tragic.

Over the last 12 years I�ve watched revenue flowing to artists collapse.

What he's actually saying is that revenue flowing from major labels to artists has collapsed. He's right. But that's not because of piracy. It's because of things like a la carte music purchases; the decision by major labels to kill CD singles; their decision to stop dealing with record stores, and focus on "big box" stores like Wal-Mart; and other bad decisions made by an industry that is used to being a monopoly. There is plenty of blame to go around for the collapse of the CD market; none of it lies with pirates.

And, notice that he doesn't go further back than 12 years. That's because 12 years ago was the year the record industry made the most money in its entire history. It did that because people were re-buying their LP's on massivly-overpriced (and price-fixed) CD's. In fact, the profits from record sales now are roughly equivalent to sales at the height of the 1980's. (He chose 1973 for a similar reason; prior to 1999-2000, this was the year when people spent the most on recorded music in history.)

There is no other explanation except for the fact that �fans� made the unethical choice to take their music without compensating these artists.

There wouldn't be, since Lowery never even considers any other explanations. Nor does he offer a single iota of evidence that "fans" sharing music caused even a single one of the ills that he claims.

It's also incredibly insensitive and tacky that he uses Chestnutt's suicide to advance his own agenda. There is no reason whatsoever to suspect that Chestnutt's suicide had anything whatsoever to do with filesharing. In fact, in his last interview, his biggest concern was that his hospital was suing him for $35K. (This is far, far less than what file sharers like Jammie Thomas are facing. Something to think about...)

Similarly, there is absolutely no reason to think that Sparklehorse's Mark Linkous committed suicide due to file sharing. On the other hand, his dire financial situation just might have something to do with the fact that EMI refused to release his album with Dangermouse, over continuing resentment about "The Grey Album." In other words, it makes more sense to say copyright enforcement killed him, not piracy.

What a douchebag.

You know, I could go on with this. But there's just too much of it. It is all bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2012 @ 10:36am
  
  Re: Lowery is a liar
  God, you're such a pathetic, lying sociopath, Karl.
  
  Are you seriously trying to say that piracy hasn't had a negative economic effect on musicians???
  
  Douchebag indeed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2012 @ 10:43am
    
    Re: Re: Lowery is a liar
    Actually, since the RIAA/MPAA likes to cook the numbers...
    
    http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/how-much-do-music-and-movie-piracy-really-hurt- the-u-s-economy/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 20 Jun 2012 @ 10:49am
    
    Re: Re: Lowery is a liar
    The douchebag here is you. Why? Because rather than rebut what Karl did say, you pulled "piracy" out of nowhere (I don't even see it mentioned by him at all in his comment).
    
    Also, calling someone a sociopath DOES NOT make it a fact. It just means you have nothing better to say. In general.
    
    Now, if you'd like to stop putting words in people's mouths and actually discuss what was said, we all look forward to what drivel you come up with that isn't an ad hom.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward With A Typical Writing Style, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Lowery is a liar
      "The douchebag here is you. Why? Because rather than rebut what Karl did say"
      
      I think posts like the one you're replying to are great. Why? Because it shows they've been backed into a corner they can't get out of. In other words, they've lost. Ad homs and straw men are all they really have left, hence why they fall back on them so often. After all they can't reply with a pack of lies because they'll simply be called on it, proving they're a liar. They can't tell the truth either because the truth supports all the people he hates, which is definitely the correct word to use here.
      
      The industry is hurting because there are far too many in it making decisions based on fear and hate instead of well reasoned thought and logic. Besides the obvious factor of human nature being what it is, one is just so much easier than the other, especially for those whom have become spoiled by what their monopoly affords them; wealth and power. Their delusions and denial will be what destroys them in the end, not piracy, and art will continue being made as if nothing had happened at all.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 8:54pm
    
    Re: Re: Lowery is a liar
    Are you seriously trying to say that piracy hasn't had a negative economic effect on musicians???
    
    It has had a positive effect for a few musicians, and mixed effects for the majority. I believe the only musicians it has had a negative effect on, are the ones that are marketed as "impulse purchases" for young music consumers.
    
    Traditionally, most people were not fans of music. They listened to the radio, and if they liked it, they bought the CD. But their music collections never went past about 50 or 100 CD's. These are the "Joe average" listeners, the ones who only hear music when they're listening to the radio at work.
    
    These people do not care enough about music to learn how to share files, so file sharing has a negligible effect with this group.
    
    On the other hand, there are the (usually young) people who are actually fans of music. They love it, can't get enough of it. They spend most of their free cash on music, but their free cash is limited. So they pirate what they don't buy.
    
    These fans are less likely to buy Top 40 stuff. For one thing, it's a guilty pleasure (try explaining your love of Taylor Swift to your best friend who goes on about The Liars or Lightning Bolt). For another thing, they know intimately that the people they would be supporting are screwing musicians and screwing consumers. On the other hand, they're far more likely to buy something from a relatively unknown band, especially if their friend sent them a download link.
    
    And these types of people buy a lot more music. Every independent study has found that people who pirate music buy much more of it than people who do not. And their preferred format is digital music. (The audiophiles among them prefer vinyl, which is why LP sales are increasing.)
    
    So, piracy probably has a positive effect on unknown, underground, indie, or niche musicians. Mid-level musicians are indeterminate; it depends entirely upon how well they exploit (or even just accept) fans sharing music for free. It only has a negative effect on the current Top 40. "Catalog" artists are probably not affected too much, since the "Joe average" listeners are their demographic.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - trollificus (profile), 23 Jun 2012 @ 12:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Lowery is a liar
      And if by "niche" musicians, you mean those who, while enjoying eating, having instruments to play and a place to live and therefore being all for "gettin' paid", still choose to make the music they love and are driven to make despite indications that there are not millions to had in the endeavor...then yeah, the followers of this kind of "niche artist" are very prone to making sure they are supported financially when that is economically feasible. (note: submit this for a Dirtie in the "Longest Sentence" category. What? No, man, they're like the Oscars...they really don't? Shit.)
      
      And surely it's better, for musicians at least, to have among their committed fans some poor people; than to have a record label armed with attack lawyers making sure no one heard them who could not buy a $15.00 CD.
      
      Most "niche" musicians seem to get this, at least a little. It's a conflict for some. As Gillian Welch sings in the bittersweet "Everything is Free": We're gonna do it anyway, even if it doesn't pay. Though she points out in the song that she doesn't HAVE to make the music that gets pirated, the chorus is a concession that, in fact, she does. And that's what makes it worth paying for.
      
      If we had a million "niches" and no multi-million-selling, industry-created, entertainment-media-promoted pop supertars...I could live with that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Karl (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 11:42pm

I posted a big-ass comment to this, but it got placed on the wrong article for some reason:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120619/03230119379/fbi-dea-warn-that-ipv6-may-be-too-dam n-anonymous.shtml#c800
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 2:27am
  
  Re:
  I posted a big-ass comment to this, but it got placed on the wrong article for some reason:
  
  We've copied it over here...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 6:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    We've copied it over here...
    
    Cool, thank you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
drew (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 12:27am

Reading around the subject
It's always good to get some opposing views and additional information so I've been doing some reading on the trichordist site. There's some really useful stuff for musicians on there.
But there's also some odd stuff.
Under their "practical knowledge" section there's an article called "Twenty Questions for New Artists" which has some nice advice about the legal side of setting up a band.
But the article is preceeded with this quote:
"TERMS OF USE
This article is made available under the terms of use at
http://www.musictechpolicymonthly.com/podcast/mtppodcasttermsofuse.pdf and the following:
1. This article may not be reproduced as part of a webpage, i.e, you are not permitted to �cut and paste� the article or any part of it on a webpage, or uploaded to a hosting
website such as scribd.com or a comparable site.
2. You may link to the article at this link: http://www.semaphoremusic.
com/2mtp/gratis2/twentyquestionsfornewartists.pdf. If this link does not work, contact the authors.
3. You may not post a link to this article on any website that is not subject to the laws of the United States.
4. You may not post a link to this article on any website that has not registered an online service provider agent with the U.S. Copyright Office
(http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html).
5. Any link to this article shall use the title and authors names, shall not change the title and shall not credit anyone other than the authors as the writers.
All other rights are reserved by the authors.
Please respect copyright."
There's quite a lot wrong with that from a legal perspective that you'd really hope that someone campaigning for copyright would understand. First and foremost the concept of fair use.
So yes I will cut and paste that here and no I won't ask for permission.

The "please respect copyright" on the end is, in the context, hilarious.

I actually liked some of the Cracker stuff (I have a couple of their cds, funnily enough I bought them after a friend made me a copy...) so I did a bit of reading around what else Mr L has done.
Interestingly Camper Van Beethoven's discography includes a complete re-working of Fleetwood Mac's album Tusk.
I struggle to get my head round the mindset that can see how this is a worthwhile addition to the greater musical canon but at the same time is willing to write-off any creation from non-professional musicians, no matter how creative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2012 @ 12:35am
  
  Re: Reading around the subject
  This piece of news, alone, deserves to be put in an article by itself. The usual shills will make fun of this, but considering the voluminous extent that Lowery has spammed this site, I think it's justifiable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 12:54am
  
  Re: Reading around the subject
  Under their "practical knowledge" section there's an article called "Twenty Questions for New Artists" which has some nice advice about the legal side of setting up a band.
  
  Keep in mind, however, that this is from Christian Castle, an RIAA attorney. He was also involved in authoring PROTECT-IP, from the looks of this memo. He was also the general council for SNOCAP.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 2:21am
    
    Re: Re: Reading around the subject
    Keep in mind, however, that this is from Christian Castle, an RIAA attorney. He was also involved in authoring PROTECT-IP, from the looks of this memo. He was also the general council for SNOCAP.
    
    And Napster, of all things. The original one, believe it or not.
    
    FWIW, while Chris is all sorts of nutty (he seems to have given up on his pet nicknames for people, but not his penchant for crazy ass conspiracy theories -- he's the guy who claimed that Google was the secret driving force behind Amanda Palmer raising $1.3 million), I think two of your claims here aren't quite true. He's not "an RIAA attorney" and actually has spoken out against the major labels quite often. He tends to be an copyright maximalist... but focused on musicians/songwriters rather than labels. Also, I think you've misread that memo. I doubt Chris had anything to do with Protect IP, though he was a big supporter. That memo appears to be dated after PIPA was public. He was just giving his assessment of it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 6:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Reading around the subject
      Aha, I knew Castle was somehow involved with Napster. I thought he was on the other side, though.
      
      Also, re-reading that memo, I think you're right that he wasn't involved in PIPA's authoring. Hard to tell, though.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 1:29am
  
  Re: Reading around the subject
  I'll say this again: for it's points I can actually agree with, that site and some of its authors couch it in such brain-eaterrhetoric that I can't actually accept their views as valid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 4:24am

I have to sympathize
After reading David Lowery's letter, I have to say that I really sympathize with the guy. Personally I think that his viewpoint is dated and that most of his arguments have been refuted and thoroughly debunked, but near the end of his letter he did make a truly valid point, even if it was naive.

David can feel free to correct me if I read it wrong, but he seems to think that all would be well if there were some service that charged $18 -$20 per month that allowed subscribers access to their music over any platform.

If I interpreted him correctly, then I have to agree that such a service would be worth that fee.

I would caution David to really think about it though. He openly admits to the injustice that labels and the RIAA are well known for, and yet he would like to see a service that would collect a monthly fee for open access. I mentioned this was naive, because he only accounted for the royalties to the artists, as if the RIAA/lablels would not see themselves entitled to an equal or greater compensation for providing the service. That would instantly mean that this open access service would have to charge $36 - $40 per month. Even that fee might be worth it, but it leaves the question, who would create such a service?

Can the labels really get together and agree on how to create such a service and how to split up such a huge pile of money so that the artists are compensated fairly?

In short, I really think David is fighting the wrong fight. Instead of arguing the morality of what is afforded by shifts in the market and technology, he should be putting more effort into lobbying for creation of some sort of open access music service that is reasonably priced. People will pay for a music service that gives them what they want, so build it and they will come.

Oh and lastly, the "morality" argument just doesn't work with all of us people that have to work every day. We would love to work on Monday and be paid for that work for our life + 70 years, but that's not how it works for most people. If musicians have to get out and tour (work) more in order to be compensated, I don't think most people will find that to be an immoral expectation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 20 Jun 2012 @ 5:06am
  
  Re: I have to sympathize
  I like your comment Josef. If I may make one additional point, the "morality" argument as much as it's pushed and said is completely ridiculous for one reason that hardly ever gets mentioned (at least by those pushing said argument), it's purely subjective.
  
  Every single person has morality/code of ethics. Every single person. With the exception of the more especially heinous things like murder, rape, and the abuse of the weak, no two people for the most part will agree on what is moral or immoral. That's the long and short of it.
  
  In these comments we've seen Audrey saying "it's theft" (over and over, yes, Audrey we got your point, could you move on please), pure and simple and it's "morally wrong and unethical". However, we had someone else respond that not sharing is "morally wrong and unethical" and someone else point out that withholding items from the public domain (due to ever increasing copyright length changes, bought... I mean, brought about by lobbying on the behalf of copyright holders) is "morally wrong and unethical". And that alone is all the proof we need that morals should never come into such a debate. We already have three people saying that three completely different things are all morally wrong and unethical. That's just three people, two of which will never be able to convince the former of anything but her belief that "it's theft".
  
  So how can we move forward when we're held back by such trivialities as one another's morals? We can't. But we can debate the ACTUAL (as in independently produced) facts on the matter, we can try and discuss mutually beneficial solutions (and by mutually I mean to ALL PARTIES INVOLVED, which includes the public, because the point of copyright originally was that it would be allowed as long as the public gained something from it by the Public Domain), and so on and so forth. But we can't get anywhere if we keep having to repeat the same talking points over and over. The handful of ACs so far seem to want to contribute nothing beyond calling the rest of us thieves, piracy apologists and hurling much worse insults than that (and on a regular basis I might add).
  
  Personally, I'd love to debate this properly and respectfully and reasonably. But that just won't happen til we can get past the "moral" stuff. (I should also add, I tried to read what Lowery wrote, as I mentioned above. But when I got to the part that you noticed as well, where he brings the deaths of two supposed friends into the argument and use their deaths to further his own agenda... well, I thought that was "morally wrong and unethical" and I was quite repulsed by such an action, which is why I just closed the browser at that point. This is my way of saying, "See, it's all subject insofar as what is or is not moral or immoral goes. So let's move past it already."
  
  Sorry to all if this is kind of rant-like. My wisdom teeth are coming in and I'm in pain and I haven't (or better said, can't at the moment) eaten breakfast or had my morning caffeine intake.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Phil, 20 Jun 2012 @ 8:14am
    
    Re: Re: I have to sympathize
    Just because you're ethically retarded doesn't mean it's ok for everyone to be that way. Some standards of ethics are universal enough that they've been around unchanged for thousands of years. Stealing from artists? Unethical to everyone except for sociopaths.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Leigh Beadon (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 8:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re: I have to sympathize
      Some standards of ethics are universal enough that they've been around unchanged for thousands of years. Stealing from artists? Unethical to everyone except for sociopaths.
      
      I agree - burgling an artist's home, or hotwiring his car, would be extremely unethical.
      
      However we were talking about file sharing, which is not theft, and a much more complex ethical question. Care to join the grownup discussion?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 8:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re: I have to sympathize
      Just because you're ethically retarded doesn't mean it's ok for everyone to be that way.
      
      Ethically retarted? Do you mean everyone who dosn't hold to your ethics is somehow less than you? Wow. Talk about an elitest atitude.
      
      Some standards of ethics are universal enough that they've been around unchanged for thousands of years.
      
      Yes, like sharing what you have with your neighbors.
      
      Stealing from artists? Unethical to everyone except for sociopaths.
      
      Well yeah. Taking an artist's guitar would be unethical.
      
      But we are not talking about theft here. We are talking about infringement, which isn't theft. And apparently there is a huge swath of the population that doesn't think that filesharing is unethical or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Did you really just call a large chunk of your fanbase sociopaths? Yeah, that will sell more shiny discs for you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 20 Jun 2012 @ 8:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re: I have to sympathize
      Can you explain how I'm ethically retarded? Because I have a set of morals and ethics that is unique, as is the same with all other people.
      
      I won't get into pointing out the stupidity of your comment, but suffice it to say you completely missed the point of what I wrote. So let me restate it just for you. Morals are purely subjective. What one person thinks is okay, another might feel is wrong. And vice versa. Which is why I said there is no room for morals in a reasonable debate.
      
      But I'd like to say one thing. Downloading a file is most assuredly not stealing. Why? Simple, nothing is taken, a copy is produced. As such, by default it cannot be theft. And I think the Supreme Court would like to have a word with you regarding "copyright infringement" and how it is NOT "theft" or "stealing".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JEDIDIAH, 20 Jun 2012 @ 8:45am
      
      Common Law Crimes
      You're the one that's ethically retarded. You are either ignorant or a liar. You are either unaware of moral history or willing to lie about it while trying to insult others.
      
      The notion of "common law crimes" is an important one. It captures a set of small well defined crimes that pretty much everyone can agree on. So can things like the 10 Commandments.
      
      There are pretty clear and universal moral guidelines.
      
      These universal moral guidelines to do NOT label sharing of information or copying of creative works as crime or sin.
      
      If your notion of morality genuinely reflected reality, you would not be alive to post your hypocrisy. Your entire bloodline would not exist. The modern world would not exist. The knowledge of the West would have been lost after the fall of Rome and any new developments from India or China would never have gotten to the West.
      
      Book "piracy" is a very important part of the Catholic tradition.
      
      You can thank your cushy life and the fact that you even have a life to that tradition of "rampant piracy".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lowestofthekeys (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 7:47am

Lowery really needs to consider the quality of music as a factor in the way things are.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=brain-scans-predict-pop-hits

This is the problem, they research too deep into how to make hits. They even have software that predicts whether a song will be a hit or not. This where it becomes all about the money, instead of actually making quality music.

Then you have numerous bands who stick to one popular sound and get bent out of shape when their next album doesn't sell as well as the previous one.

Lowery's a good example of this. I have several Cracker CDs that I purchased legally when I was younger (even Garage D'or a two disc set where he does a cover of Bob Dylan's "You Ain't Going Nowhere" with the lead singer of Counting Crows, who also happens to support file-sharing) and their sound varied, but they never ultimately changed.

At that point in time, when he expects to be paid for churning out the same content over and over, it becomes entitlement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Phil, 20 Jun 2012 @ 8:09am

Thanks for admitting you're an unethical thief... I think that about says it all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2012 @ 3:18am
  
  Re:
  Thanks for not reading the article, and spamming the entire thread with your insistence that everyone who doesn't agree with you must be a thief.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RonKaminsky (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 10:33am

David Lowery invents: the "trollvertisment"
I'm still finding it hard to believe that Lowery isn't doing this trolling intentionally in order to regain the exposure he's lost with the rise of the newest generation of musicians.

A weird variant of Poe's Law means I'll never know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2012 @ 12:34pm

David wants a pony?
Can I give him a donkey?
An eDonkey to be precise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Watchit (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 11:06pm
  
  Re:
  a donkey!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 22 Jun 2012 @ 5:57am
  
  Re:
  You want to give him a donkey? What he needs is a Nema...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2012 @ 5:42am

I should have known Techdirt would have a good rundown on this. I was so surprised to see such BS spread around like it was making great points. The Trichord's anti-tech slant is just childish and pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trollificus (profile), 23 Jun 2012 @ 12:25pm

Isn't "Phil" just a slightly more verbose "Audrey"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HFYT, 23 Jun 2012 @ 5:27pm

Sophistry
I think Masnick makes a sophisticated (and sophistic) argument and that his followers, including Beadon, who are less intelligent and less honest, offer their childish reinterpretations.

It would be interesting to know what Masnick would tell a kid of his if they asked if it was okay to download music from a pirate site. I bet the truth would surprise a lot of his followers.

Or if his kid asked if it was okay to copy the answers from a fellow student's exam, because, after all, he's not stealing the answer, he's just copying it. The other test taker still has the answer so they're both better off, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 24 Jun 2012 @ 3:24am
  
  Re: Sophistry
  "It would be interesting to know what Masnick would tell a kid of his if they asked if it was okay to download music from a pirate site. I bet the truth would surprise a lot of his followers"
  
  I'm going guess that the answer is "no, it's not OK you frigging moron, but that's not what most people here support anyway".
  
  If idiots on the "pro-**AA" side would actually come up with arguments that weren't lies and distortions, you might actually see that the real opinons held by most here aren't pro-piracy in any way, shape or form. Sadly, those twats keep skewing the argument into a team game where anyone who doesn't kneel down and worship the current corporate structure is branded a pirate. Nothing's further from the truth, but honest debate is thin on the ground among all the lies we have to defend against.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ElWarbo, 9 May 2014 @ 10:12am

That Gum you Like...
I understand he's been going after lyrics sites. What a dumb move. I don't think artists like him realize how much money they make off these sites. In fact I specifically remember hearing a great song emanating from the computer of someone at work. I googled the lyrics: "That gum you like is back in style..." and it pointed to one of HIS songs on one of these "evil" lyric sites!

I bought the album. That was my introduction to Camper Van Beethoven.

I can't even count how many songs from various bands I've bought solely because of these sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]