Even The Usual Defenders Of The RIAA Are Pointing Out They're Simply Lying About YouTube
from the look-at-that dept
Paul Resnikoff's Digital Music News site is a worthwhile read, often turning up some really interesting news. However, the site pretty consistently takes the legacy music industry's point of view in the various debates on copyright and music services. To me, it has a somewhat unfair bias against many of the new innovators and music platforms that have helped drag the industry (kicking and screaming all the way) into the internet era. But it's still well written and thoughtful, and I appreciate the work that Paul does, even if I don't always agree with his opinion. So consider it quite a surprise to see Resnikoff call out the RIAA on its completely bullshit attacks on YouTube over the past few months. Resnikoff isn't pulling any punches. He points out that basically all of the music video views on YouTube are licensed, and ContentID (for better or for worse) has basically made it easy for the labels to do a "notice and staydown" like they've been demanding for the past few years:But new data not only shows that YouTube isn’t breaking the law, they aren’t even abusing existing copyright law. A recent report from music industry research group Midia revealed that just 2% of YouTube’s music video content is unauthorized. These are illegal UGC uploads of concerts, lyrics videos, the actual videos, or other material that rights owners didn’t green light beforehand. The rest, about 98%, are not only completely authorized, about 75% of them are high-quality and supplied by the labels themselves through Vevo, according to the same dataset.To be clear, looking at the details from Midia itself, it's not saying that only 2% of the videos are unauthorized, but 2% of music video views on YouTube are of unauthorized videos. And that's still an important point. It suggests that, contrary to what the industry likes to claim, the kids these days aren't spending very much time at all using YouTube to watch unauthorized streams. It's almost non-existent. The same report also found that music represents just 12% of all YouTube viewing time. That kinda shows how the claims of the industry about how YouTube is supposedly only successful because of music uploads is complete hogwash.
So, if just 2% of music videos are unauthorized and can be taken down using DMCA procedures, what’s the problem here? The Recording Industry Association of America, an organization that represents the three major labels, has been leading the charge against widespread DMCA abuse by video giant. “YouTube takes advantage of the dysfunctional DMCA to do less about piracy than it could and pay unfairly low royalty rates,” RIAA chief executive Cary Sherman declared. “It doesn’t have to be like this.”
But is that even true? Adding to the confusing is Content ID, a system created by YouTube to allow content owners to automatically flag their content if it appears on YouTube without permission. Once identified, the owner has the option to remove that content, monetize it, or even strip the audio out of it (for example, if paired with a group of people singing karaoke). YouTube says that system, part of a self-contained copyright ecosystem, makes the DMCA irrelevant in most situations. In other words, if you don’t want your video on YouTube, then you should just remove it.
He notes that most musicians themselves recognize the promotional value of YouTube as well, and they'd probably freak out if the labels removed their videos from YouTube (remember, for all the hype about Taylor Swift removing her music from Spotify and other streaming services... she kept her YouTube videos up). As Resnikoff points out, the labels are upset about the amount of money that YouTube pays, but it's pretty clear that the overall value that YouTube provides in terms of audience, exposure, marketing and, yes, some money, is clearly worth it:
It’s a simple economic calculation: YouTube offers more value than just a fractional penny rate, and artists and labels are making a calculation that it’s worth it. Otherwise, they would leave.He goes on to point out that the RIAA's complaints make no sense other than as whining because they're upset that Google is so rich... and they're not.
In the end it's good to see this data. To hear some in the recording industry explain things, you'd think YouTube is entirely built off of pirated music. I've literally seen some musicians complain that YouTube deliberately allows piracy because that's the only thing that keeps the site afloat. That appears to be based on conspiracy theories, not reality.
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: authorized, cary sherman, contentid, paul resnikoff, unauthorized, videos, youtube
Companies: google, riaa, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regulation drums
If we just need regulation, I mean since we do not ask for anything other than regulation... what are we expecting? We just want regulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regulation drums
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Regulation drums
But this article is critical of RIAA. A business that is doing nothing more than using regulation to protect its bottom line.
The point is that TD just runs its mouth like everyone else, but ultimately serves no real purpose other than to provide the masses with entertainment.
Do not get me wrong, I do enjoy reading TD, but today I think... what is the point of all of this? You have reported on RIAA and many others like them, and I have yet to see any success.
I do not blame TD for this by the way, it's more of a question for all of the readers. You just just post the news, however the readers just read, make smartass or stupid comments (I do it as well) and tomorrow we ready pretty much that things have gotten worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
Uh, no.
Especially the current ones from the FCC, despite the new rules being worse, and despite that the FCC was responsible for the problems to begin with.
No. To be clear, historically we were very wary of the FCC rules because we're generally not big fans of over regulation, contrary to your weird claim to the contrary. We tend to favor free markets and competition and innovation.
Where concerns are raised is where there are situations that block out competition, innovation and a free market, and the broadband industry was becoming exactly that -- where you had a few dominant players who were abusing their dominant position to harm the open market on the internet. Under those circumstances, we supported the FCC's VERY NARROW rules that did little more than block abusive practices by ISPs, encouraged more competition and did nothing whatsoever to put more onerous regulations on companies. That's it.
But this article is critical of RIAA. A business that is doing nothing more than using regulation to protect its bottom line.
Yes. And we have been historically absolutely consistent that we don't agree with regulatory arbitrage like that.
The point is that TD just runs its mouth like everyone else, but ultimately serves no real purpose other than to provide the masses with entertainment.
The point is you seem to have made a bunch of assumptions about us, almost all of which were wrong.
Do not get me wrong, I do enjoy reading TD, but today I think... what is the point of all of this? You have reported on RIAA and many others like them, and I have yet to see any success.
How do you define "success"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
Regulation is absolutely a non specific term. I think TD is definitely trying to do what it can, but I think it could be better. Yes, this is my opinion and sure, plenty of readers might disagree.
I would also like to say that most of my assumptions are not QUITE what I am thinking you think they are. I believe we do agree on many things, just I am more of a details oriented fellow and most people do not wish to think or discuss at that level.
Success is hard to define. TD has an objective, would it not be better for you to say what you seek to achieve then I can tell you from my perspective that you are achieving it?
Example, is TD out to change Regulatory Law? I would say some success, but mostly failure. And this is mostly based on the responses I read in the responses. I hope I am more wrong than right, but since I am not seeing a light at the end of the tunnel, it looks like I might be right.
In short, people say "we want more regulation"
Government hears "make more corrupt regulations"
What we really mean, but actually never seem to say is...
"We all want only enough regulation to keep the worst aspects of Free Market and Capitalism from being realized which are Monopolies and Backroom Economic Conspirators where everyone agrees to suppress wages with non-poaching agreements and price fixing of their products".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
Uh, YOU are the only one trying to turn this into a generalized discussion about "regulation". The word isn't even used in the post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
Seriously? This article is about regulation and what RIAA has accomplished in the economy with it, you know it, and your retort is predicated on the fact that the word is not written in the article? RIAA would likely not even EXIST if it were not for REGULATION! Very bad and terrible regulation!
THIS is where you guys need the improvement!
I can bust out the definitions to show you how it is all related if you need, but I am sure you can look them up yourself.
Or you just just call me a blithering idiot of a troll and ignore me. It makes no difference. The only thing I can think of is that I have a terrible problem where I just cannot convey my thoughts properly or in a way that makes you guys see it the way I do.
Humans are far tooooooo concerned with how a message is delivered instead of the quality of the contents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
The point is that here at TD, it is my general feeling that everyone wants regulation to make their life easy at the expense of their liberty or free market principles. I am just saying that many of your views of regulation will work against you instead of for you. The existence of RIAA in this article is an example of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
What blog have you been reading? Because it aint techdirt...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
Like orbitalinsertion. He makes generalized statements in support of regulation. You going to go and have a word?
I think it is clear that people at TD see the word regulation as default good, and free market as default bad. More than enough posts are made to those effect. I am sure you can check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
You are living in another universe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160614/11325134706/tpps-corporate-sovereignty-chapter-threat -to-democracy-regulation.shtml
It really reveals a nasty bias about TD. TPP IS REGULATION!!! But you are saying it is a threat to it?
To your credit you did discuss these things in the frame of Sovereignty issues which was most certainly appropriate.
And to be clear, to what democracy do you refer? Democracy does not exist, there is no such beast that has ever existed on the face of the earth that anyone can truly point to. Not even the Democrats support an actual Democracy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
The TPP simultaneously creates extensive new regulations and interferes with sovereign governments' ability to determine their own regulations. Both those things are problematic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
My own point is that things like the TPP is the final outcome for all regulation. It's just how things roll! History proves it!
I mean why in the hell do you think we will be revisiting this damned subject for the rest of our lives?
This is why I seek to change the nature of discourse surrounding regulation. It is ALWAYS BAD, lets just make sure that regulation is ONLY used in situations that are WORSE THAN BAD, and this would be a Monopoly for example. People's ability to choose their ISP or What IP the RIAA owns or represents has shown to be terrible targets of Regulation of any kind.
Good intentions are just not enough! Congress has far more experience at writing twisted laws i.e "regulation". All regulation will be BAD, it will never not be, not because regulation itself is bad, but because they will never be able to resist the darkness! And since the only avenue for regulation is through that darkness... this means all regulation is bad. So lets view regulation through the proper lens, an agent of malicious destruction that should only be allowed employment when malicious destruction is called for!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
Regulation just like Government will always flow towards the dark side of reality. It is very imperative that people understand that when you choose to use a bad tool to get rid of bad things be prepared for the NEW bad leader to do you wrong too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
This is basically the exact opposite of our view.
You are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20160614/07240634702/appeals-court-full y-upholds-fccs-net-neutrality-rules.shtml
wait, why am I hunting down articles?... they are yours... just read your OWN net neutrality articles.
You guys have NO problem supporting BAD regulations while a decent person is enforcing them. The problem will be when Wheeler is gone and a stooge is put in his place! If congress does not gut them first!
I guess I have no further rebuttals for denial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
Claiming that means we are generally pro-regulation and anti-free-market is either a moronic thing to say or a disingenuous argument tactic. I don't know which is the case here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
You can't legitimately say you are pro-free market except the times you are not.
They are principles for a reason. If you can can be reasoned with to sacrifice them here, then you can be reasoned with to sacrifice them there.
But I wills till give you guys some kudos, you are still great guys... just not as honest about these things as me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
I have to say "right back at you!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
Sites like TechDirt take press releases and news stories full of corporate and political double speak/lies/utter and complete bullshit, remove the untruths and distraction, and leave us with something approximating the truth. Which is a breath of fresh air, in an age of corporate owned media outlets, all of which are either biased toward one side of the political spectrum or the other, or have agendas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
But there are certain regulations that the people at tech dirt are in favour of.
It's as simple as that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
That is the opposite of the default case at TD. So you are just wrong.
But also, TD does not comply with your desire for absolutes. TD will never say: "All regs are bad". That's too much of a simplification. Thus, in some cases, regulations are considered good. At TD, this is generally in cases where the regs "correct" a free market that has already been distorted by some other factor (ex: monopoly control, information dis-symmetry, overkill intellectual property ownership, markets that favor incumbents and block entry of new entrants.)
You are harping a lot on the FCC regs. These regs are praised here, yes. The market for fixed broadband is NOT competitive in the USA. UNE-P was a reg that fixed it, but it was shot down in the courts, so we're back to too much market power in the hands of incumbents. Net Neutrality and Title II regs are not perfect, and nobody here said they were. But do they make things better, or worse? We think better. But do we love regs here? Not really. If you actually read the articles, I'd bet that over 80% of them that praised the Title II also CLEARLY stated that a better solution than regs would be "more competition."
Techdirt consistently argues in favor of a freer market, more competition, and regs ONLY for the sake of fixing market failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
Until they don't as in the case of the FCC. This is not about all of the times, it is about the general feel of it all. Most notably from the TD readers!
I have already stated that for the most part TD does support Free Market Principles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
Given: A free market is good.
THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT CAN INTERFERE WITH A FREE MARKET, not just regulations.
Others examples:
monopoly
monopsony
dirty dealing/crime/racketering/coercion/intimidation
lies, false marketing
information dis-symmetry
systemic advantage of incumbents over new entrants
So, if regulations can target fixing market failures, they can be an improvement. Take for example, the Schumer Box (no, not the thing below Amy Schumer's belt that she jokes about all the time), her uncle's namesake box on credit card applications that require banks to offer clear, concise information about the finance terms, which allows consumers to choose better. This regulation addresses information dis-symmetry between banks and customers, preventing them from disguising higher rates with confusing presentation. So, it's good.
I think a lot of people, like this AC, think that "Free market" means "a market with NO regulations", and that's wrong. A complete lack of regs does NOT automatically result in the economist's idealized "free market". Many things can go wrong, so we NEED rules to optimize the outcomes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
I can only speak for myself, but I see regulation as inherently neither good nor bad. It is a necessary tool, and it can be used both to enhance freedom and liberty and to suppress it.
Regulation is a powerful and dangerous tool, though, and needs to be handled with due caution and care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
The problem arrives when we run this tool through a bunch of corrupt bastards. We voted in Congress, and then congress created these agencies and then unconstitutionally said they had the power to create regulation.
Agencies can only constitutionally enforce regulations created by congress, the constitution does not give congress the power to grant law making to an agency!
Here is an article talking about some of it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-rise-of-the-fourth-branch-of-government/2013/05/24/c7 faaad0-c2ed-11e2-9fe2-6ee52d0eb7c1_story.html
Regulation while itself neither being good or bad, is having a 100% bad outcome. No accountability, no oversight, and rampancy throughout the agencies for flexing powers they never should have been given!
I am sure there is a decent regulation someone... just cannot seem to find one that is not riddle with double talk, loopholes, and obtuse definitions!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
You are presenting an opinion about government. One might call it a philosophy, or a theory. It's by no means invalid - there are those who agree with it, and those who disagree. It's a somewhat extreme philosophy, rooted in absolutes, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that. It is one philosophy among many, worthy of consideration, and also undoubtedly imperfect.
But you don't present it as such. You present it as a plain an obvious truth that any moron would obviously agree with, and act baffled by the discovery that not everyone does. It's time to grow up just a little bit and learn how to have a real conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
Did you notice how at no point does said article assert "regulation is ALWAYS BAD" and "it will never not be" like you do? And how it never claims that if you ever support any regulation, you are anti-free-market, like you do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
In economics if there is a natural monopoly that supposedly justifies the imposition of a government that limits competition, as some would argue cable and broadband are, then natural monopolies are supposed to be regulated (in a manner that limits price and ensures quality, performance, and other basic standards). In economics you never want an unregulated government imposed monopoly, that is always a no no.
You can read up on this on Wikipedia even
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
Also anti-trust laws exist for a reason. The cable/broadband industry is arguably the best quintessential example of where anti-trust laws should be applied today. Unfortunately they have completely failed to meet their intended mandate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
But I think everyone is probably tired of me running my mouth at this point so I will go away again for a while and give everyone a break.
But it's like I can see the future, it will not help, because for some inexplicable reason, people prefer the simple life, and are find with constantly being taken advantage of so long as they get to snooze in their cat nappers. It really can be so much better, but it's very hard to explain how to people that do not want to think past what is for breakfast.
The number of people still using Facebook is largely proof of their simple mindedness. You really can fool most of the people most of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
Neither Techdirt nor anyone else I know of "generally agrees with regulation". There are good regulations; there are bad regulations; there are potentially good regulations that are abused or have side effects; there are potentially bad regulations that still accomplish certain goods; there are areas where regulation is one possible solution but not the only one; there are areas where regulation is more likely to be problematic than helpful; there are areas where regulation looks like the best solution.
what is the point of all of this? You have reported on RIAA and many others like them, and I have yet to see any success.
Really? We were deeply involved in the mass protest that stopped SOPA - the most referenced source on the issue on the whole internet, according to one study. We also played a big role in bringing more attention to ACTA, which faced widespread protests in the EU. And both the blog and our research reports have been deeply involved in the ongoing fights over all sorts of topics we cover. And I like to think we've played a pretty critical role in making some of these topics more widespread, and educating much greater numbers of people about the issues. This is all a big, complex, ongoing process - what does success look like to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
We must only be able to tell a business what it cannot do, NOT what it MUST do. There really is a big difference there and that fact is being hugely taken advantage of.
Yes, I most certainly realize how silly it sounds, that is actually the ENTIRE POINT!!! Let me ask you this? Why is it me being silly asking for NO regulation but not silly for someone asking FOR regulation. My core point is that just asking for things using general terms is what is silly and we are doing it all of the time.
I will give you deserved props on the SOPA you guys definitely deserve pats on the backs for those. But I am looking at the whole picture, you win some, you lose some. When adding everything on the scales, it looks like we are losing. You bet I hope I am wrong, and while you guys helped to stop SOPA and ACTA, those beasts live on in other forms inside TPP and its brethren. You won a fight, it's just that the war is far from over.
So yea, I think we are losing, and yes it's a big, complex, ongoing process. I certainly do not want you guys to stop, but I can say that I feel more than beat down by a lot of it, especially when I am wanting to get people to frame things a bit differently.
Is my way of framing it the best? Well I think so, it is really the best? Only trying out will tell at this point, cause the current way surely seems to be less effective that I think we would want it to be!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
I don't know anybody asking for "more regulation" in as vague, meaningless terms as you are asking for "no regulation".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
The fact is that regardless of how much they earn, the big ol' boys are scared shitless of losing control more than they are of losing money.
The latter they can correct through threats, loans, downsizing, etc.
But the former is the real deal, they used to control the distribution channels, now they're just "customers" of those channels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Regulation drums
As anti-vaxxers don't remember what things were like before vaccines, some people don't know what things were like before regulation. Regulatory capture is bad, sure. Even insanely awful. But as usual it is a power balance problem, which doesn't go away when there are no regulations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
Would you rather fight against a corporation? (Free Market)
Or would you rather fight against a government backed corporation? (Regulatory Capture)
The trashing of free market principles here at TD help prove my claim that everyone is seeking all the wrong kinds of regulation here.
Government first causes problems and then campaigns against them. Government has destroyed more lives than all war in human history and you support their "Management" of the Economy?
That is the very definition of insanity! You are more afraid of your unknown neighbor than an entity you can watch daily on the news taking and ruining lives!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
WHAT are you talking about? When have we ever "trashed free market principles"? We've long advocated for the power of the free market - especially in the realm of technological innovation. Is this entirely because we supported the FCC's net neutrality regulations? Get over it dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
here is an article that calls it into question. Took very little time to search for an example which is not a good sign.
I do agree that TD staff and articles are generally in support of free market, but not where most of your readers are concerned. For this part lets assume I am only talking about your readers in general not TD Staff in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
Its bias is that free market principles are desirable in that space. This does not support your assertion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
Seeing the load of fabled "Free Market" idea...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Free_market
The Free Market could work if everyone had equal access to everything. (So 3D printing and Price Controlled Resources)
However if greed/capitol is your GOAL...then the first thing you do is seek advantage...in a Free Market you'll have cartels (Which price fix);
Monopolies (Also, Price Fix). It's that simple... now when you allow money to influence politics (Not just Citizens United but allowing companies to buy Politicians, or Groups of particular interest to be able to accept funding and then can pass that along to our Politicians) Then we get Crony Capitalism creating artificial Monopolies and Cartels.
This it why "Unregulated Capitalism or a Free Market Economy" is a wonderful bedtime story and not something any serious mind should believe.
In Capitalism there is always a Boom and Bust cycle...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regulation drums
Regulation regulates regulations, but regulations are relegated to regulating the regulators. So, if we want to regulate the regulation of regulators, we have to put regulations into place that will regulate regulating regulations?
Do I have that right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look, on the screen! It's a commentor, it's a visitor, it's...
So if regulations equal laws, and you clearly don't like regulations, does that mean you're not a fan of laws either?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look, on the screen! It's a commentor, it's a visitor, it's...
Copyright laws are regulation, so is the DMCA. This article is very much about regulation.
My continual harping on these points are multiple fold.
1. Our constant call for more regulation despite them destroying our liberty.
2. Calling for more regulation by the corrupt which will only produce more bad regulation.
3. Blaming the wrong ideas or entities for things we hate about the economy.
RIAA and the DMCA are perfect examples of what our calls to Regulation has provided us. We call for the Regulation and the government agrees and the Businesses quickly buy favor to ensure those "called for" regulations are written in their favor. The citizens sit back like we had a victory and quickly come back realizing we have been had (yet again), starting the cycle anew!
We are still not voting in pro liberty candidates for Congress, therefore RIAA will remain entrenched in their position. Yes, they are going to keep lying about piracy and it's effects on their income, but its really about furthering the DRM agenda so that no place can buy, sell, or trade any form of media without their explicit involvement. This is what uncontrolled calls for regulation have brought us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Look, on the screen! It's a commentor, it's a visitor, it's...
Oh damn, why didn't I think of that? It's so simple! All we have to do is stop the bad regulations! All this time wasted trying to parse the intricacies of law when all along the key was just to say no to bad laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Look, on the screen! It's a commentor, it's a visitor, it's...
I have yet to see one and I visit TD almost every day. I am happy to be wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Look, on the screen! It's a commentor, it's a visitor, it's...
Why are you insisting that this has to be our stance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look, on the screen! It's a commentor, it's a visitor, it's...
Seriously, I am happy to be wrong! I just want to see it, so I can know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look, on the screen! It's a commentor, it's a visitor, it's...
You want examples of Techdirt speaking out against bad regulation? Go see our positions on: every copyright bill of the past 10 years, every free trade agreement of the past 10 years, Europe's Right To Be Forgotten and other data protection and privacy regulations, many bills in the US such as the Cloud Computing Act, internet regulatory efforts in China and Russia and India and countless other countries, state-level attempts to regulate VOIP, etc, etc, etc. Go read our long roster of posts exposing and criticizing about regulatory capture or the revolving door between government and industry.
Criticizing bad regulations makes up a gigantic portion of what we do here.
The FCC's net neutrality regulations are virtually the only example of a tech-related government regulation we support, because we felt they were an effective solution and potentially the only workable solution at the time to a very real problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look, on the screen! It's a commentor, it's a visitor, it's...
I am just trying to help with some of the bad parts. Please do not take this as me hating on TD. I really like you guys, I am just fairly staunch in my opinions... I am sure you see that by now.
Regarding the simplistic terms, I think that is just me trying to dumb it down enough. But if you do not like that let me go back up a few levels.
The natural path of Government is to drift towards corruption and tyranny because it is filled with humans and this is their natural path. Regulation is a tool to help accomplish these things. It brings one stop shopping to businesses to influence policy makers and vice versa.
Without regulation, businesses must appeal to the masses, but with regulation, they can just appeal to people far easier to pay off!
In general boycotting and unions can ward off the biggest negatives of Crapitalism and Free Market. I think the TRUE problem is that people want to be lazy and instead ask for government to take care of their business instead of having to suffer long enough without a carrier for their iPhone and boycotting them over their fucking bullshit!
So yea, there are OTHER tools instead of Regulation... just most of them require "effort" for too many LAZY American's. This would make a great segue into one of the reasons America has fallen so far and why we have a pair of the Shittiest fucking Candidates running for President!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look, on the screen! It's a commentor, it's a visitor, it's...
I think my case is clear, Over all regulation is viewed in a positive light at Techdirt by both staff and readers, despite the general support of Free Market principles except in the noted cases which I am more angry about. At the end of the day, I am directly telling each and every one of you, that no matter how you spin the pie, Regulation is always bad because of the relationship it creates between government and business. Basically a relationship that is not necessary.
The more government hands are in the economy the more corrupt they become, its a cycle that feeds upon itself like symbiotic parasites!
We seriously need to stop asking Government, the people responsible for most of our problems to solve problems WE need to be solving without them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look, on the screen! It's a commentor, it's a visitor, it's...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look, on the screen! It's a commentor, it's a visitor, it's...
Are you saying because TD is generally on the rights side of these arguments that I need to shut-up when I think they are making mistakes?
So like, shutdown the users feedback section? I mean... they are mostly right right? no need to help keep them on the straight and narrow eh?
And besides, if they support regulation here, but not there... how can I be certain they will not fall back in another arena?
All Regulation is BAD no matter what. Just because I said I can support regulation against monopolies does not mean it goes into the good bucket. It's is still bad, Just happen to believe that a monopoly is worse than a regulation to prevent them.
Even then my full preference is no regulation and fellow Americans not be too lazy to boycott a few things making sure that any business getting boycotted fails! That kind of regulation sends much bigger message to stop fucking the American Citizens!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look, on the screen! It's a commentor, it's a visitor, it's...
You say you support anti-monopolistic regulations, but you are bashing Techdirt for supporting it. Why are you so instant that techdirt can't support regulations that you yourself support?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look, on the screen! It's a commentor, it's a visitor, it's...
Do you believe that all regulation is bad and should be avoided?
If not, then your real disagreement is not about the existence of regulation but about what you consider to be acceptable regulation.
Do I have this right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regulation drums
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Regulation drums
More regulation? That is not specific at all?
How about repeal of copyright law?
Repeal of DMCA?
Or how about only asking for Anti-Monopoly or Anti-Trust regulation and be against all other forms of regulation which do nothing but promote corruption?
Regulation is just a word, a tool, great in the hands of the good guys but terrible in the hands of the corrupt. Since the only people that want government jobs are majority corrupt, we need to ask for laws, regulation, rules, blah blah blah, in a way that makes it difficult for them to screw us with them. Which means, stop calling for regulation, start calling for something specific.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
Ummm.... you're the guy who is here ranting and raving about "regulation" in general and offering no specifics and no indication of any nuance whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
I am just annoyingly persistent, and if that is all that is necessary to get whatever's name attached, I think my view of the posters here at TD might be brighter than it should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulation drums
sometimes i get on a roll and then everything is trying to beat me down, not always because they disagree, they just want me to shut up for some shut eye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regulation drums
Are you a temp?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Regulation drums
I'd like to welcome you to Techdirt. I hope you enjoy your stay, even if it's only temporary. Try to read a lot and hopefully you learn something. Feel free to comment, maybe you might even contribute something useful.
If you are a temp at the company you work for hopefully you will enjoy your stay here at Techdirt enough to be a regular visitor here after your temp position is over. Who knows, you might even change your mind on some issues. and with experience your ability to compose meaningful sentences may improve as well. Whatever is a good example of this, while he still clearly needs work at the very least his stance on issues, his logic, and his ability to clearly communicate has improved a lot.
Then again there are many shills here that have been here forever and they are still unable to compose a coherent sentence most of the time. Who knows, hopefully you won't fall in that category. I suspect most of them are on too much alcohol and drugs, if you're not on drugs you're probably OK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regulation drums
Abolish copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regulation drums
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regulation drums
Did you check the Official TechDirt Pledge everyone has to sign in blood before coming onto the site?
Or the finalized, official platform of the TechDirt Party?
Or the policies of the FTC telecommunications department Masnick runs.
If you still can't find the official explanation of what "we" all want, brush off the dust and try looking under that gigantic, cobwebbed pile of unused brain cells. Which, for most of us, are kept in the cranium, but your search might be quicker if you just started at the anus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regulation drums
Laws are passed by the legislative branch of the government and are enforced by police. Regulations are rules created by government agencies of the executive branch. They lack the force of law unless backed up by legislative order and are enforced by that agency, not police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I don't care if it would drive your business under, I WANT MORE!"
That part really deserves repetition, as it underlines just how hollow the complaints about how sites like YT 'Don't pay enough' are. If the ones making the complaints really felt that they were getting ripped off then they'd stop using the service.
Nothing stops them from pulling their content and attempting to make their own competing service, one where they can get their 'fair' share other than some work, but for the chance to get a 'fair' amount, and have more direct control over their stuff that should be an easy decision to make if the deal YT and similar sites/services is really so terrible.
As the Copyright Is The Best Thing Ever lot like to say, 'If you don't like the terms, do without'. Well, YT has set the terms, if they don't like it then they can do without.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I don't care if it would drive your business under, I WANT MORE!"
You could give the industry exactly what it wants, and tomorrow it will think up something else. It just wants MOAR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine what would happen if an artist, who just blasted YouTube for being the devil, looked at how much money was sent on their behalf to the industry and saw that they are actually earning enough to make it worthwhile... except there are these middlemen who are nickel and dimeing that income down to the final number they get paid.
Death of 1000 cuts, bleeding the cash out of the pipeline.
Keeping the artists blaming the wrong people.
Taking a cut to pay for the laughable anti-piracy programs.
Paying a cut to an industry group that makes it harder to connect with the fans, by spreading lies to keep themselves relevant.
Paying a cut to buy laws that hold back technology & punish paying customers, and encourage people to stop playing by the rules.
Paying a cut to cover the vinyl record breakage for each YouTube viewing.
Perhaps it is time the artists stop looking where the industry tells them to lay all of the blame, and ask questions about why this far into the internet age, everything is still based on the golden age of the 60's.
The only people ripping them off is their own industry, and its time to blow the contracts open and ask why they are paying protection money to those causing them the most harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just like some industries could actually make more money by selling product at a significantly lower price, and selling far more units... they won't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
right in one, but not the control you think. The RIAA is no longer afraid of online media platforms, they know its the only way to go.
They are afraid of self-publishers and small labels finally taking a proper cut of their own. They are afraid those indie businessmen will spread the word to their cash-cows about how much they make. They fear said cows coming to them, demanding bigger cuts, and leaving when they won't get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'd say you're mostly correct here. At this point they've probably realized for the most part that they either start working with the new platforms or they say goodbye to the money as new artists skip them entirely, yet at the same time they wouldn't shed any tears if those same platforms crashed and burned thanks to the insane demands that they are making of them.
Or put another way, they're absolutely fine with the new online platforms so long as they get to act as though they own and/or control them. An equal arrangement along the lines of "I'll provide the platform if you provide the music" is not something they're at all interested in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'... they wouldn't shed any tears if those same platforms crashed and burned thanks to the insane demands that they are making of them, and they're once more in the position where you either sign with them on their terms or have no chance at being heard or making money from your music.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1) That would take time, effort and work on their part.
2) When it failed due to high prices and/or insane requirements/limitations for use it would make it much more difficult for them to then turn around and claim that someone else could easily do what they failed to do, despite the fact that as the owners of the works in question they were in the best position to succeed, since they didn't have to deal with anyone else and had direct control.
Primarily #1 though, given you're dealing with people that think that it's everyone's job but their's to 'protect' their stuff and make them money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And what Google actually claimed was that 95% of views were monetized, not 95% of all music on the site. Which of course doesn't matter anyway, since they're providing no proof of their claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yawn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, apart from the study it specifically references. Do you have something to refute it? If so, cite away.
As for what Google claimed? 95%? I see neither thing in the article so what are you arguing with exactly?
Let me guess, another AC can't refute anything in the article so he pulls vague invited claims from a fantasy world again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Somebody please check my math....
I'm not sure the Pirate Guild would admit anyone to the club based on those numbers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Math checked, found lacking in parrot
Depends on who you ask. I think the official Guild guidelines requires something in the range of 20-25% infringing files for entry, whereas *AA guidelines only require a theoretical .01% or higher for a site to qualify and be treated as a Guild member.
So going by Guild standards? Nope, not even close.
Going by *AA standards? Yarr maties!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anti-RIAA attorney Ray Beckerman was a regular writer for Digital Music News, though it seems that all of his content, many years worth, has now been flushed off the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
artists knows youtube is a superb promotion platform,
gives us more as they want to constantly increase the
payout from youtube.
put a video up, yt pays the streaming network storage costs .
when mp3,s and mp3 players were invented they tried to
sue it out of existance ,
Instead of making a digital service where people could buy music .
riaa does not want to compete in a free market .
They will sue over things like pre 62 music rights ,
to get a bit more money ,even if it makes no
sense in the long term to attack radio stations .
The music could make a new video streamimg website ,
but it would not get the audience that youtube gets .
Youtube is a free video promotion service for any indie
singer or artist so of course the riaa does not like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
promotional value
They decided to start this process in New Zealand. The TV stations there responded by pulling all music video shows and promotions from their schedules.
Music sales plummetted - more like crashed and burned actually. Consumers blamed the labels for forcing the material off air and most of the smaller independent labels which weren't part of the dispute were badly burned as airtime means sales.
This kind of result made TV and radio stations aware that they were providing quite valuable free advertising for the music industry.
The standoff lasted about 4 months. The sign that the industry was crying "uncle" was that they paid full advertising card rates (and _noone_ pays full card rates even for a single advert, they're there to negotiate down from) to air Michael Jackson's "Thriller" video, in its entireity on breaks on the main channel 6pm news, not once, but two nights running.
A few weeks later, music video shows quietly resumed. The music industry never _ever_ again even breathed about wanting royalties for TV airtime.
It might seem that Internet boycotts wouldn't work nearly as effectively because of the decentralised nature of the beast, but consider this:
Newpaper publishers in Spain and Germany claimed that Google's headline aggregation service was costing them advertising and managed to get royalty laws passed.
Google responded by simply shutting down services in both countries - at which point publishers discovered just how much it was going to cost them as sales plummetted. In Germany, individual publishers were able to negotiate for Google to carry them again - but this time they had to pay dearly for the privilege - and did so in order to regain sales. Spain wrote their laws so this was impossible and as a result many spanish publishers are in serious financial doo-doo.
The message is simple: Be very careful you're not killing the Goose which is laying your Golden Eggs.
YouTube could respond to the RIAA by simply dropping ALL music videos - and that's quite apart from the threat that the music industry is actually quite small in absolute value - small enough that if google is annoyed enough it could simply mount a hostile takeover of a few labels and then do what it liked with the material.
Ditto for the MPAA threat. The reality is that these organisations have a public impact well in excess of their financial numbers and any telco/cable company in the USA could mount a hostile takeover.
One of the more pragmatic approaches to music sharing was thought up by APRA (the australasian performing rights association - equivalent to RIAA), who came up with a proposal of a universal license of $1 per ISP customer per year which would allow them to copy as much music as they liked. Larger ISPs wouldn't buy into it, smaller ones thought it was a good idea. It failed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: promotional value
Have you got some links for this? I've been looking for the story behind it for years and can never find anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
there's pros and cons of everything. live and let live!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]