Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the little-pink-comments dept
This week, both of the top insightful comments come from my response to John Mellencamp's screed about the "apathy" of the entertainment industry in the face of piracy. JWW took first place with a comment that, apart from mistaking me for Mike, laid out the basic facts:
Its quite simple.
The Internet >> the recorded music industry
Basically the internet is way way way more important to mankind and human communications and the distribution of ideas than whether people get paid via some old school system (which Mike correctly notes looks more like indentured servitude than the net does).
So what we're left with is that fact that artists damn well better learn how to use this fantastic new distribution, advertising, promotional, connection tool that is the internet to build careers that work for today, not the 1950's.
Not far behind we've got Gwiz, responding directly to Mellencamp's description of the internet as "the new delivery system", and pointing out the fundamental (and illustrative) mistake therein:
This another tidbit he got wrong.
The Internet is not the "new delivery system".
It's a two-way communication platform. It's a many-to-many relationship. It will never, ever be turned into a one-way one-to-many system like broadcast TV. It's not built that way.
For Editor's Choice, first up we've got GMacGuffin on our post about the MPAA's ongoing efforts to prevent a Megaupload user from retrieving his data. The MPAA's insistence that it wants to prevent further infringement has always seemed pretty dubious, as GMac points out:
Infringing content -- by definition -- was made by someone other than the Megaupload user. It's already out there somewhere else, so infringers don't need to obtain access to their lockers. And wouldn't be asking to get at their infringing content in a Federal Criminal case anyway. Friggin Duh! (Oh, but you know that anyway.)
Cue disingenuousity music...
Challenge to musicians in the Techdirt community: score some "disingenuousity music"—it could be the soundtrack of the age.
Up next we've got PaulT on our post about the bizarre claims that more movies being made is somehow a bad thing. Specifically, he responded to the comment about films that "shouldn't have gotten made."
Translation: we wouldn't have funded them, we wouldn't know how to market them, so we don't want to see them being successful lest they undermine our tepid production line.
Moving on to the Funny side, we open with a comment on our post about Lucasfilm's sale to Disney, from none other than the Sith Lord himself. Darth Vader kicked off the comments by repeating an (in)famous line and one of George Lucas' most reviled latter-day changes to the Star Wars saga, while also providing a link to a handy web service:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
(I'm far from a Star Wars purist, and not particularly bothered by the sale to Disney, but even I have no idea what the hell Lucas was thinking when he added that hacky overdub.)
For second place, we go back to our post on the more movies/less movies conundrum, with another response to that same mention of films-that-should-not-be. DannyB got sarcastic:
That's the same horrible thing that is happening with open source! Software is being written that should not be written.
And self publishing of e-books. Books are being written that should not be written!
And independent thought! Thoughts are being thunk that should not be thought.
The human tragedy of all this cannot be underestimated. Not to mention how bad it is for the economy, and jobs. And think of the children! Congress must make the Whole World do something!
For Editor's Choice, we'll start with Zakida Paul on our Halloween post featuring a great video from Buzzfeed on the economics of candy trading. Zakida went and spoiled all the fun:
I'm not sure you have the right to resell your candy. You could end up getting sued.
And finally, we've got an anonymous commenter on our post about Amazon's overreaction to sock-puppet reviews. This AC clearly approved of our coverage:
Really Enjoyed this one!
This article was great, I give it 4 stars out of 5 and I would definitely recommend it to friends!
We swear we didn't pay him for that.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"We swear we didn't pay him."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "We swear we didn't pay him."
burden of proof is on the one disputing it to prove the positive that nullifies it.
because, you know, that's actually possible.
come to think of it, our resident trolls need to learn that one.
(yes, I realise you were probably joking and know this already, and found it amusing in that capacity. I have problems leaving incorrect things alone, and not just on the internet. Hence part of the reason for my usual excess of parentheticals and my inability to leave uncorrected trolls alone :S)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "We swear we didn't pay him."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "We swear we didn't pay him."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "We swear we didn't pay him."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwup4ItqyNQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Challenge Accepted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really - the internet is bigger than content
And the more movies/less movies item is equally absurd. It's fantastic that low cost movies are being distributed that could never be economically distributed before. But people spent $50 million to see wreck-it Ralph notwithstanding. The internet should allow BOTH - big and low budget - and let people invest in content if people want to see it. Lack of IP protection prevents that investment and ONLY the low budget survives. Artists want an internet that encourages both - not ONLY free, but also supports commerce between willing ticket-buyers and willing producers that's not destroyed by the everything MUST be free folks. That's a stronger network, not a weaker one, and one that's more powerful for everyone, not one that grows by sucking the lifeblood out of creators for the sole benefit of consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: really - the internet is bigger than content
I agree.
I agree with this too. The problem is that things have skewed so heavily in the "IP protection" direction that they are damaging everyone who isn't a multinational corporation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: really - the internet is bigger than content
I actually agree with this sentiment for the most part. The problems I have is when your IP enforcement collides with my individual rights of Free Speech, anonymity and due process. Personally, I hold my individual freedoms miles above your wishes to earn money from your creations. If you want to enforce your IP rights in ways that hold these core values above your enforcement practices - go for it.
As a taxpayer, I also do not wish that you spend my hard earned money to enforce your IP rights either. If you want to do so, do it on your own dime please.
Now I also have a question or two for you. What are you willing to sacrifice to solve the problem of piracy? For example - would you agree to reasonable limits on copyright, say 10 years max, in order to gain a healthier respect for copyright from the general populace? Would you agree to opt-in copyright where in order to gain copyright protections the artist would need to proactively register the work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]