I suspect the "everyone made money" comment referred to everyone involved in selling the music, meaning the label and the artists (and all the other middlemen), in contrast to his earlier statement about only the labels getting the money.
I don't think that blog post claimed anything like you imply it did. They're simply expressing that it was successful in boosting sales in local stores.
I'm not a fan of the RIAA, but it comes off as petty to criticize a post that doesn't try to spin the sales.
You're right. It's a much better idea to have fans give their $10 to some other person first, before they ever see you. That'll make them want to give you more money for a live show.
I always encourage fans of my/my band's music to download it and spread it around to their friends. That kind of publicity is worth far more than any widely-spread ad.
While this is a precedent, it's a horrible precedent for anyone to follow. Nobody can reference the Nazis (the most common hyperbole) seizing computers, but this doesn't come off much better. If the entertainment industry tries arguing for such behaviour, this story makes for easy negative PR.
It's strange to see this perspective on this blog. Someone created something new by using freely, legally available quotes, and you're claiming the assembler is not "right" for doing it. ("This is a 'doing the smart, right thing' issue.")
Masnick often makes a point of saying those "wronged" when their material is appropriated shouldn't feel wronged, but should instead see it as an opportunity for more free exposure.
I agree the publisher could've involved the tweeters and had some free promotion as a result. The fact still remains that they didn't do anything wrong or against these people. They even credit them (via twitter handle) as the sources. What is wrong with that?
I'm interested to see how that works out. People want video support, but video sites want their content to be seen by people. The iPxxx market is getting bigger and bigger, and more and more people are accommodating it because they don't want to lose their eyes.
I don't know if it's fair to compare this to when Apple lost the floppy drive, declaring it outdated technology well before the mainstream thought it was. Eventually, the mainstream caught up to them.
I'm not arguing for/against. It's just an interesting thought. :)
I'm not saying the App Store limitation is good, just that it doesn't apply to all Apple products.
I don't think letting Apple control it's own store is bad either, but there should be an approved back door for anyone who wants to load unapproved apps.
I'm reminded how they went to work getting the footage of the aftermath of the monorail accident at Disney World pulled from everything they could. At the time, and frankly even now, I'm not sure how they could claim any rights over it.
If Viacom argues that converting a video to a different format makes it a transformative work that Google owns instead of the original creator/uploader, wouldn't that make MP3 sharing legal?
Thank you for highlighting this point. It's fear-mongering.
One counter-argument I read suggested that the technology was dangerous in case someone had an emergency, and couldn't drive the disabled car. Since when did people get the right to drive vehicles they didn't pay for in emergency situations? That's justifying grand theft, and it's stupid.
The story demonstrates a problem with the dealer's (and possibly the technology company's, but I don't know for certain) procedure and/or security, not an inherent problem with technology.
On the post: If You Kill Someone And Want To Get Away With It, Bragging About It On Facebook Isn't A Good Idea
On the post: Mick Jagger: Artists Really Only Made Money Selling Music For About 25 Years
On the post: Arizona Finally Dumps Speed Cameras
On the post: Match.com Upset That Other Dating Sites Cite Stats About Themselves, Like It Does
Re:
On the post: NYTimes' Boss Pretends That A Paywall Creates A Stronger Emotional Bond
On the post: RIAA Missing The Point About Record Store Day
Credit where due
I'm not a fan of the RIAA, but it comes off as petty to criticize a post that doesn't try to spin the sales.
On the post: Band Says: If You Want To File Share Our Music, Cool, But Please Share It Widely
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Band Says: If You Want To File Share Our Music, Cool, But Please Share It Widely
On the post: In The Name of Microsoft, We Oppress This Media!
This could be a good thing
On the post: How To Piss People Off: Publish A Book Using Their Tweets Without Asking Them First
Re:
On the post: How To Piss People Off: Publish A Book Using Their Tweets Without Asking Them First
Re: Re: Oh please
Masnick often makes a point of saying those "wronged" when their material is appropriated shouldn't feel wronged, but should instead see it as an opportunity for more free exposure.
I agree the publisher could've involved the tweeters and had some free promotion as a result. The fact still remains that they didn't do anything wrong or against these people. They even credit them (via twitter handle) as the sources. What is wrong with that?
On the post: TSA Admits That Body Scan Machines Can Record Images
Old news?
On the post: Is The iPad The Disneyland Of Computers?
Re: Re: Re: Flash support
The iPxxx market is getting bigger and bigger, and more and more video sites are accommodating it because they don't want to lose viewers.
On the post: Is The iPad The Disneyland Of Computers?
Re: Re: Flash support
I don't know if it's fair to compare this to when Apple lost the floppy drive, declaring it outdated technology well before the mainstream thought it was. Eventually, the mainstream caught up to them.
I'm not arguing for/against. It's just an interesting thought. :)
On the post: Is The iPad The Disneyland Of Computers?
Re: Re: Re: Matt
I don't think letting Apple control it's own store is bad either, but there should be an approved back door for anyone who wants to load unapproved apps.
On the post: Is The iPad The Disneyland Of Computers?
Re: Matt
On the post: Disney Lawyers Chose Not To Sue You For Posting Your Disney World Vacation Videos... But They Could!
Monorail accident
On the post: Analysis Of Google And Viacom's Arguments Over YouTube: A Lot Of He Said/She Said
Re: Loophole
Would I make a good lawyer?
On the post: Analysis Of Google And Viacom's Arguments Over YouTube: A Lot Of He Said/She Said
Loophole
On the post: Disgruntled Ex-Auto Dealer Employee Hacks Computer System To Disable Over 100 Cars
Re: Only the Beggining
One counter-argument I read suggested that the technology was dangerous in case someone had an emergency, and couldn't drive the disabled car. Since when did people get the right to drive vehicles they didn't pay for in emergency situations? That's justifying grand theft, and it's stupid.
The story demonstrates a problem with the dealer's (and possibly the technology company's, but I don't know for certain) procedure and/or security, not an inherent problem with technology.
Next >>