I think the reason that a lot of people are giving advice is because the mechanisms that are being proposed are affecting everyone else. You don't give me advice on my job because how I choose to do my job makes zero difference to what you do in your everyday life. I'm not (and nor are my purported representatives) campaigning for new laws that will criminalise your day to day activities.
Another reason is because we have seen many times how people can make these things work and, contrary to what certain commenters would suggest, a lot of us want to support artists and we want them to succeed. Many people here also create their own content.
What a great deal of people here don't like is the actions of the legacy industries and as a result they choose not to support them (and in some cases actively undermine them, but regular reading seems to indicate that's a fairly low number actually).
"Maybe I'll start a site where musicians gather to figure out how and when and if you all should get paid, and what your rights should and should not be."
The point is that the market already defines what we get paid according to what value we add to our businesses - that's the only sensible way to figure out what people should be paid (I doubt anyone here is in the 1% back-patting club). As to the rights comment, again it comes back to what copyright is, it's a set of restrictions on the populace, an entitlement to creators over and above those rights that exist on physical property. Feel free to discuss any way in which you wish to enhance my rights any time you like.
P.S. as a musician, would I be invited to your site?
"Ira Rothken is out reminding the world that the US has failed to comply with the order to return the data that was illegally taken"
Was or was not data taken out of NZ by the FBI?
And has it or has it not been found that it was not done in accordance with NZ law?
Whether it's a copy or the original (as was originally proposed) isn't, in this case, relevant.
The only change in position appears to be on your behalf.
"So when you buy a book, all you want is the paper? You don't want the words? Just go buy some blank paper!"
Some stuff I buy on e-book, some stuff I really like the package that it comes in so I buy the paper version. Similarly I buy some stuff on vinyl, some stuff on cd, some stuff on MP3 - all depending on how much I value the packaging, how it's being distributed and how I can make sure the most money goes back to the creator.
"There would be more money in suing because massive amounts of people aren't doing the right legal thing."
I'm still waiting for some confirmed figures on this you know, even the RIAA's figures show that online infringement is a far smaller issue than they've been claiming. Data from an unbiased source is a pipe-dream though I think.
"Nevertheless, that is all just crystal ball gazing and not based on any real problem."
It is indeed, however if you look at the mess that's happening in software patents and how the mechanism is failing to scale, I am now expecting a similar issue with music and copyright.
"What's real is massive amounts of infringement, which oddly, you and many people here don't see as a problem."
Again, there's still some doubt about the 'massive' bit, but even taking RIAA's figures, there's more offline sharing than online, so it's always been happening and no, I really don't see it as that big a problem. It's a small problem to those who can understand it and use it to their advantage. It's a big problem to those who can't.
"Why don't you respond to my points rather than reporting me and bragging about it like a little censoring twit? "
1) Many people have already responded to your points, you just don't like the answer so you make the same point again elsewhere as if that will change things.
2) Not bragging, explaining to you why your comments keep getting reported.
3) after which the rest of your comment goes into your usual excretion of bile.
Here's my guess, when the gatekeepers that survive change their business models to become enablers then the content of this, and many other blogs, will shift to deal with whatever other problems are affecting technology and its users.
My other guess will be that you'll still be here bitching about Pirate Mike because I think it might actually be some kind of addiction for you.
Long may you continue to post and disagree, good discussion keeps us all on our toes and the absence of ad hominems sets you apart from a cetain other AC...
Getting back on point briefly, there is still a vast amount of value that middlemen can add, in loads of different ways, but it takes a shift from gatekeeper to enabler.
Fortunately lots of people are waking up to this.
I've reported this comment, it's the same as one above but with added ad homs, more going off topic and even less coherence.
So basically, reported for being a cunt.
"How much should an *empty* mp3 cost? Who wants that?" - so you have something completely intangible, a song, and even the packaging and delivery mechanism has a virtually zero unit cost. In what other kind of market would you expect to be able to charge a dollar for that?
"I think the day when people run out of new music to make is a long way off. " - It's not something I've ever worried about before but thinking about it now, content produced now could be locked up for the next 100 years easily (or longer when you consider the frequent extensions to copyright duration), at some point soon some major rights holder is going to realise that there's more money to be made in suing people using a three-chord-trick than there is in recording their own.
At which point there will be something of a field day for the lawyers and everyone else will get boned.
Possibly he posted it so that people would write to this chap and point out how awful his coverage was and request he sort his act out. I mean, it's only the biggest sporting event in the world...
ALternatively, why would you post such a deliberately goading post here, knowing that all you'll do is provoke a frustrated / angry response?
"The idea that artists have to be paid is not moot" surely the fact that it's being discussed mean that it is? By definition...
You appear to have misread the comment, Beech did not say that the cost of production is marginal, he said the marginal cost is effectively $0. Think of it as unit cost if you prefer.
If the product is the song not the mp3 (and I don't disagree with you there) then the mp3 is just packaging, how much are you willing to pay for packaging?
Only a dollar is still a day's wage for large portions of the globe.
"The issue of one songwriter infringing on another is a whole different issue. How does that affect you?" - it affects us all because there will come a point where so much content is locked up under copyright that it will be practically impossible to come up with a new tune that hasn't already been used in someway previously (quite possibly in an instance of which you are completely unaware) without creating something so avant-garde that it is - to the bulk of people - completely unlistenable.
I've just been though about five on-line dictionaries (I don't have a paper one to hand) and in none of them can I find a definition of theft that would equate to copyright infringement. All of them talk about depriving someone of something which, as we've established on a number of occasions, copying does not do.
Hmmm, wonder if that's why there's a separate offence called copyright infringement to cover that?
" the old 99 cents from Itunes don't go far."
So what's your point here? That 99c isn't enough? Or that these people should continue to be paid for the next umpteen years, at a premium rate, because of their previous work?
"Blah, blah, blah. You still fail to understand the basics."
Ignoring the economic argument about unit costs is probably not a good way of trying to get paid. Just sayin'
"Shin Fein was certainly a terrorist group" Umm, you might want to check your details a little bit, but I get your point.
I do still disagree with you though, I think a single person can be a terrorist and, if the results of that act or campaign are not handled correctly can instill a culture of fear. A lot of this, getting back to the original topic, comes back to how the situation is handled.
"Non-patent and non-copyright areas are most often those areas that don't have a high barrier to join in."
Hmmm. I think I'm going to disagree with that statement. The barrier to join in for copyright can be incredibly low. A pc and a story for example. Similarly software can have an equally low cost of entry.
Movies, I accept, are a different kettle of fish, but that's in part driven by how our culture has allowed them to develop (would the new batman film* have been a complete flop if there hadn't been a a-list cast on many millions each for example?)
Thinking of intellectual property areas that aren't subject to either copyright or patents is a bit more tricky: fashion, cuisine, um, help me out here I'm temporarily a bit brain dead and struggling. These two, I would argue, have a much higher barrier to entry and therefore a much higher risk factor.
* Just been to see it, dirty stinkin pirate that i am, it's very good I thought - though John Fenderson may disagree ;¬)
Hold on, I thought you were talking about a single getting a physical release? Where does the album come in?
Besides which there's a world of difference between negotiating a distribution agreement from a position of relative strength and signing away all your rights because that's the only option.
Do you agree with that at least?
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Songwriters?
Another reason is because we have seen many times how people can make these things work and, contrary to what certain commenters would suggest, a lot of us want to support artists and we want them to succeed. Many people here also create their own content.
What a great deal of people here don't like is the actions of the legacy industries and as a result they choose not to support them (and in some cases actively undermine them, but regular reading seems to indicate that's a fairly low number actually).
"Maybe I'll start a site where musicians gather to figure out how and when and if you all should get paid, and what your rights should and should not be."
The point is that the market already defines what we get paid according to what value we add to our businesses - that's the only sensible way to figure out what people should be paid (I doubt anyone here is in the 1% back-patting club). As to the rights comment, again it comes back to what copyright is, it's a set of restrictions on the populace, an entitlement to creators over and above those rights that exist on physical property. Feel free to discuss any way in which you wish to enhance my rights any time you like.
P.S. as a musician, would I be invited to your site?
On the post: US Has Ignored New Zealand Court Order To Return Data It Seized From Megaupload
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Was or was not data taken out of NZ by the FBI?
And has it or has it not been found that it was not done in accordance with NZ law?
Whether it's a copy or the original (as was originally proposed) isn't, in this case, relevant.
The only change in position appears to be on your behalf.
On the post: US Has Ignored New Zealand Court Order To Return Data It Seized From Megaupload
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some stuff I buy on e-book, some stuff I really like the package that it comes in so I buy the paper version. Similarly I buy some stuff on vinyl, some stuff on cd, some stuff on MP3 - all depending on how much I value the packaging, how it's being distributed and how I can make sure the most money goes back to the creator.
"There would be more money in suing because massive amounts of people aren't doing the right legal thing."
I'm still waiting for some confirmed figures on this you know, even the RIAA's figures show that online infringement is a far smaller issue than they've been claiming. Data from an unbiased source is a pipe-dream though I think.
"Nevertheless, that is all just crystal ball gazing and not based on any real problem."
It is indeed, however if you look at the mess that's happening in software patents and how the mechanism is failing to scale, I am now expecting a similar issue with music and copyright.
"What's real is massive amounts of infringement, which oddly, you and many people here don't see as a problem."
Again, there's still some doubt about the 'massive' bit, but even taking RIAA's figures, there's more offline sharing than online, so it's always been happening and no, I really don't see it as that big a problem. It's a small problem to those who can understand it and use it to their advantage. It's a big problem to those who can't.
On the post: US Has Ignored New Zealand Court Order To Return Data It Seized From Megaupload
Re: Re: Re:
1) Many people have already responded to your points, you just don't like the answer so you make the same point again elsewhere as if that will change things.
2) Not bragging, explaining to you why your comments keep getting reported.
3) after which the rest of your comment goes into your usual excretion of bile.
On the post: Patton Oswalt Explains That There Are No More Gatekeepers In Entertainment
Re:
My other guess will be that you'll still be here bitching about Pirate Mike because I think it might actually be some kind of addiction for you.
On the post: Patton Oswalt Explains That There Are No More Gatekeepers In Entertainment
Re:
Getting back on point briefly, there is still a vast amount of value that middlemen can add, in loads of different ways, but it takes a shift from gatekeeper to enabler.
Fortunately lots of people are waking up to this.
On the post: US Has Ignored New Zealand Court Order To Return Data It Seized From Megaupload
Re:
So basically, reported for being a cunt.
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re:
"I think the day when people run out of new music to make is a long way off. " - It's not something I've ever worried about before but thinking about it now, content produced now could be locked up for the next 100 years easily (or longer when you consider the frequent extensions to copyright duration), at some point soon some major rights holder is going to realise that there's more money to be made in suing people using a three-chord-trick than there is in recording their own.
At which point there will be something of a field day for the lawyers and everyone else will get boned.
On the post: Music Labels Have No Plans To Share Any Money They Get From The Pirate Bay With Artists
Re:
On the post: Music Labels Have No Plans To Share Any Money They Get From The Pirate Bay With Artists
Re:
On the post: Dear Permission Culture: This Is Why No One Wants To Ask For Your OK
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because he wants to make a parody of THIS FUCKING SONG!
On the post: UK Politicians Don't Seem To Mind That Every Web Page You Load Is Copyright Infringement Under Current Law
Re: Re:
On the post: Biggest Critic Of NBC's Awful Olympic Coverage Has Twitter Account Suspended For Tweeting NBC Exec's Email
Re: come down to intent
ALternatively, why would you post such a deliberately goading post here, knowing that all you'll do is provoke a frustrated / angry response?
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re:
You appear to have misread the comment, Beech did not say that the cost of production is marginal, he said the marginal cost is effectively $0. Think of it as unit cost if you prefer.
If the product is the song not the mp3 (and I don't disagree with you there) then the mp3 is just packaging, how much are you willing to pay for packaging?
Only a dollar is still a day's wage for large portions of the globe.
"The issue of one songwriter infringing on another is a whole different issue. How does that affect you?" - it affects us all because there will come a point where so much content is locked up under copyright that it will be practically impossible to come up with a new tune that hasn't already been used in someway previously (quite possibly in an instance of which you are completely unaware) without creating something so avant-garde that it is - to the bulk of people - completely unlistenable.
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
Hmmm, wonder if that's why there's a separate offence called copyright infringement to cover that?
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what's your point here? That 99c isn't enough? Or that these people should continue to be paid for the next umpteen years, at a premium rate, because of their previous work?
"Blah, blah, blah. You still fail to understand the basics."
Ignoring the economic argument about unit costs is probably not a good way of trying to get paid. Just sayin'
On the post: Drew Stephenson's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do still disagree with you though, I think a single person can be a terrorist and, if the results of that act or campaign are not handled correctly can instill a culture of fear. A lot of this, getting back to the original topic, comes back to how the situation is handled.
"Non-patent and non-copyright areas are most often those areas that don't have a high barrier to join in."
Hmmm. I think I'm going to disagree with that statement. The barrier to join in for copyright can be incredibly low. A pc and a story for example. Similarly software can have an equally low cost of entry.
Movies, I accept, are a different kettle of fish, but that's in part driven by how our culture has allowed them to develop (would the new batman film* have been a complete flop if there hadn't been a a-list cast on many millions each for example?)
Thinking of intellectual property areas that aren't subject to either copyright or patents is a bit more tricky: fashion, cuisine, um, help me out here I'm temporarily a bit brain dead and struggling. These two, I would argue, have a much higher barrier to entry and therefore a much higher risk factor.
* Just been to see it, dirty stinkin pirate that i am, it's very good I thought - though John Fenderson may disagree ;¬)
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Besides which there's a world of difference between negotiating a distribution agreement from a position of relative strength and signing away all your rights because that's the only option.
Do you agree with that at least?
Next >>