And I want to point out that Mike isn't saying the fees are too high... the SEC is saying that the fees have created an environment that is so risky that proper disclosure to investors needs to be given.
If even the SEC is saying the environment is untenable for business to run safely...
"I haven't heard any well-explained alternatives that sound better than the current system of labels being paid when their music is played, so yes, I'm going with copyright. (not that I'm closed-minded or some sort of maximalist)"
That doesn't mean they don't exist. Mike has mentioned a few alternatives to many of these business models, which while they don't work for everyone they DO work for some... contrary to what a particular AC may say about it.
And thank you for the perspective on the other facets of the industry. I know that I let my "RIAA Screwing The Artist" view cloud my perception of the rest of the labels that don't do that... I get a bit hung up on the "for the artists!" battlecry of the RIAA. Irks me.
Anyway, Even if that money does go back to the artist, how is that helping encourage the creation of new art? How is it paying back the cost of creation if they are getting ridiculous sums of money for something they did long ago? If that's the kind of business model that our society wants for artists, then fine... but I don't think it is. If it were, we'd all be in line to pay the Artist Welfare instead of here arguing about how much is being charged because there is no alternative available (unless we force a change).
And maybe that's part of the problem too... we don't have a choice (outside of piracy)... it's either play their way and fund the welfare... or don't listen to music.
"That's your consistent position (here in music website version): the MAIN draw must be provided by someone else FOR FREE."
Funny... I don't remember Mike ever saying that it should be free.
" "John Doe" says explicitly that licensing should be FREE."
Yet another person who didn't read the cheap part... do you stop reading as soon as you see the word "Free" so you can jump down to the Submit Comments section?
" BUT you never seem to factor in "piracy", which if unchecked, WILL lead to near zero sales"
Wrong. We have seen many studies that show where pirates make the best customers and that they DO in fact purchase music. We have heard from many self-proclaimed pirates here that say they do buy the music the previously 'pirated' so that they can indeed support the artists.
Are you saying that an artist (and we're ignoring the fact that all these license fees really go back to the RIAA, and a small, laughable trickle comes down to the actual artists...) should get money every single time that song is played?
Remember, the whole copyright system was developed to promote creativity... not create a welfare system for artists so that they never have to work again. If they can coast on the residuals of a song written 50 years ago, where's the incentive to create new art?
Now I, and the person to whom you were replying, don't think that everyone should get these things for free. But if you are making MILLIONS off of a handful of songs because you are charging per person who ever hears it, how is that using the CW system to 'recoup the cost' of creating the and distributing the art? That's extortion.
Actually, that's an interesting point. Is it right for us to lump The Onion into the same stupidity as the NYT? They do offer different services. In fact, you might say that The Onion is charging for the entertainment, not the 'news'. Maybe the comedic value of the articles is the RtB (in their minds)
He swings... and connects, but Oh! it's a fowl ball down the right base line.
Nice over-simplification-that-blurs-the-situation-into-almost-your-favor though. I think I'll try that the next time I'm debating the old testiment... "God's business model theory: kill everyone but the Jews."
You notice, however, that Pandora believes this is possible... the SEC are the ones who think the costs are too high and relying on the lobby concessions and other 'favors to reduce that cost is a risky business plan.
So I missed the part where Pandora was whining to anyone about anything. Did you read a different article then I did?
I don't disagree with that rule... I was simply pointing out the question of taking one action that will have negative consequences versus an action that might have negative consequences.
And ultimately, I was hoping to illustrate my concern over us perpetuating a system that is not even going to give us the opportunity to make the choice. Because we've put so much weight behind this opinion, we can't even choose to forge ahead in spite of the new 'poorer rating' because we're all too bogged down in the mire of "OMG What does it mean!?!" running about.
"The subjective S&P valuation is critical in believing our credits worth something."
Only because we allow it to be.
I'm not saying that the opinion is valueless or uninformed... but instead of going all crazy over this and playing the blame game, how about we take a look at the numbers and see how to fix it or make a united stand behind 'the dollar' to show that the nation's faith isn't all that shaken by S&P's opinion.
Here's another issue I have with this opinion being made so powerfully affective... There's a lot of headlines about how the Index futures are tumbling and how the Market is suffering (or is expected to suffer) because of this.
I put it in the same hat as when oil prices rise because someone runs out of milk for their cereal one morning (exaggeration, I know... but you get what I'm saying). I understand that the Market is generally risk-adverse (or at least seems so now a days) and therefore errs on the side of caution... but this seems a little excessive. When in the middle of a recession (sorry, I don't feel like it's as over as they claim), wouldn't it make much more sense to say "ok, so S&P is down a grade... keep calm & carry on" so that the situation does not grow worse?
Or, to put it another way...
Choice 1: Buy into the S&P hype and definitely make things worse or,
Choice 2: Ignore the S&P and maybe suffer the consequences of buying into 'bad debt' (or whatever), which I don't think all economists agree with S&P on anyway.
"Do you understand now how your claim is incorrect?"
Considering that you've failed to point out which part of Mike's opinion is incorrect... no, I don't think he 'understands'. Of course, your devilishly good logic and argument skill may have swayed him from the Dark Path... Mike, feel free to say so if that's the case.
Mike is talking about the insanity of allowing an opinion system dictating the very things you're talking about happening. Or, more accurately, he's talking about the insanity of allowing the opinion system create the worry that what you're talking about would happen. So, how is he wrong in that? Oh! Wait! It's an opinion! Impossible to be 'wrong'. Oops.
Opinions may be misinformed, but I certainly don’t see anywhere (outside your opinion) that he’s misinformed, so… again, oops.
And congrats on the meta-fail logic there. First, attempting the logical fallacy of 'because Mike is wrong about patents, he must be wrong here', and dash in a bit of strawman since patents have nothing to do with this. And top that all off with the fact that "Mike is wrong about patents" is your opinion (evidenced by the fact that you support your claim with exactly nothing, but still say “demonstrably wrong”), and we have a nice pile of fail. Great way to start your week. Hopefully, nowhere to go but up.
"This ruling is just on the question of whether or not the domain should be returned pre-trial. The judge does note that the First Amendment part can be challenged in the actual upcoming trial, but in the meantime, he's claiming that a clear violation of the First Amendment does not create "substantial hardship." "
The judge here is saying that it's not clear whether it's a First Amendment violation... just that even if it is, it does not represent a 'substantial hardship'.
But hey, gives you a chance to take another swing at Mike and all us 'freetards', so who cares about facts, right?
"It's likely the same logic that will be used to show that a small amount of protected free speech doesn't excuse or cover up for scads of illegal or unprotected speech."
No, it's not 'the same logic'. Your example doesn't really even come close to the issue here. Think back around the Printing Press analogy... it's a lot closer to the mark.
And no one here ever said that the small amounts of free speech excuses the (possibly) illegal, and thus unprotected, speech. We're saying that the First Amendment has been upheld that you cannot block protected speech (no matter how comparatively small it may be) in the effort to stop unprotected speech.
" One wonders if she avoids working by electric light and shits out the window, too." (emph. added)
...she might just advocate it. I wouldn't have mentioned this if I didn't know about it from my good friends at Cracked. I’m not saying she does advocate this… just that it exists and is therefore a possibility.
Do yourself a favor and just skip to number 3. I'm not responsible for any mental damage from reading the rest of that list.
After reading descriptions of your actions, I am of the opinions that you are an idiot and are abusing the legal system for your own ego-stroking/wound-licking. I personally believe you should be disbarred for your actions and taken out back behind a woodshed and beaten with a razor strop.
I truly hope you career is ruined and ended over this because it will have been by your own actions and you'll have that wonderful opportunity to see the outcome of your choices and actions.
On the post: SEC Told Pandora To Be More Explicit In Its IPO That Its Business Is Likely Unsustainable Due To Crazy Licensing Rates
Re: "The issue isn't so much Pandora..."
If even the SEC is saying the environment is untenable for business to run safely...
On the post: SEC Told Pandora To Be More Explicit In Its IPO That Its Business Is Likely Unsustainable Due To Crazy Licensing Rates
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real problem is...
And thank you for the perspective on the other facets of the industry. I know that I let my "RIAA Screwing The Artist" view cloud my perception of the rest of the labels that don't do that... I get a bit hung up on the "for the artists!" battlecry of the RIAA. Irks me.
Anyway, Even if that money does go back to the artist, how is that helping encourage the creation of new art? How is it paying back the cost of creation if they are getting ridiculous sums of money for something they did long ago? If that's the kind of business model that our society wants for artists, then fine... but I don't think it is. If it were, we'd all be in line to pay the Artist Welfare instead of here arguing about how much is being charged because there is no alternative available (unless we force a change).
And maybe that's part of the problem too... we don't have a choice (outside of piracy)... it's either play their way and fund the welfare... or don't listen to music.
On the post: SEC Told Pandora To Be More Explicit In Its IPO That Its Business Is Likely Unsustainable Due To Crazy Licensing Rates
Re: "The issue isn't so much Pandora..."
Yet another person who didn't read the cheap part... do you stop reading as soon as you see the word "Free" so you can jump down to the Submit Comments section?
Wrong. We have seen many studies that show where pirates make the best customers and that they DO in fact purchase music. We have heard from many self-proclaimed pirates here that say they do buy the music the previously 'pirated' so that they can indeed support the artists.
On the post: SEC Told Pandora To Be More Explicit In Its IPO That Its Business Is Likely Unsustainable Due To Crazy Licensing Rates
Re: Re: Re: Re: The real problem is...
Remember, the whole copyright system was developed to promote creativity... not create a welfare system for artists so that they never have to work again. If they can coast on the residuals of a song written 50 years ago, where's the incentive to create new art?
Now I, and the person to whom you were replying, don't think that everyone should get these things for free. But if you are making MILLIONS off of a handful of songs because you are charging per person who ever hears it, how is that using the CW system to 'recoup the cost' of creating the and distributing the art? That's extortion.
On the post: Disappointing: The Onion Tests A Paywall
Re:
On the post: Disappointing: The Onion Tests A Paywall
Re:
Nice over-simplification-that-blurs-the-situation-into-almost-your-favor though. I think I'll try that the next time I'm debating the old testiment... "God's business model theory: kill everyone but the Jews."
On the post: Disappointing: The Onion Tests A Paywall
Re:
On the post: SEC Told Pandora To Be More Explicit In Its IPO That Its Business Is Likely Unsustainable Due To Crazy Licensing Rates
Re: Greedy bastards!
So I missed the part where Pandora was whining to anyone about anything. Did you read a different article then I did?
On the post: TSA Confiscates Pregnant Woman's Insulin, Ice Packs
Good thing we're stopping terrorism...
Nuff said.
On the post: TSA Confiscates Pregnant Woman's Insulin, Ice Packs
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Insanity: Getting Worked Up Over One Company's Slight Change Of Opinion In The Creditworthiness Of The US
Re: Re: Another facet of the Opinion Problem
And ultimately, I was hoping to illustrate my concern over us perpetuating a system that is not even going to give us the opportunity to make the choice. Because we've put so much weight behind this opinion, we can't even choose to forge ahead in spite of the new 'poorer rating' because we're all too bogged down in the mire of "OMG What does it mean!?!" running about.
On the post: Insanity: Getting Worked Up Over One Company's Slight Change Of Opinion In The Creditworthiness Of The US
Re:
Only because we allow it to be.
I'm not saying that the opinion is valueless or uninformed... but instead of going all crazy over this and playing the blame game, how about we take a look at the numbers and see how to fix it or make a united stand behind 'the dollar' to show that the nation's faith isn't all that shaken by S&P's opinion.
On the post: Insanity: Getting Worked Up Over One Company's Slight Change Of Opinion In The Creditworthiness Of The US
Another facet of the Opinion Problem
I put it in the same hat as when oil prices rise because someone runs out of milk for their cereal one morning (exaggeration, I know... but you get what I'm saying). I understand that the Market is generally risk-adverse (or at least seems so now a days) and therefore errs on the side of caution... but this seems a little excessive. When in the middle of a recession (sorry, I don't feel like it's as over as they claim), wouldn't it make much more sense to say "ok, so S&P is down a grade... keep calm & carry on" so that the situation does not grow worse?
Or, to put it another way...
Choice 1: Buy into the S&P hype and definitely make things worse or,
Choice 2: Ignore the S&P and maybe suffer the consequences of buying into 'bad debt' (or whatever), which I don't think all economists agree with S&P on anyway.
On the post: Insanity: Getting Worked Up Over One Company's Slight Change Of Opinion In The Creditworthiness Of The US
Re: Don't know what you're talking about again.
Mike is talking about the insanity of allowing an opinion system dictating the very things you're talking about happening. Or, more accurately, he's talking about the insanity of allowing the opinion system create the worry that what you're talking about would happen. So, how is he wrong in that? Oh! Wait! It's an opinion! Impossible to be 'wrong'. Oops.
Opinions may be misinformed, but I certainly don’t see anywhere (outside your opinion) that he’s misinformed, so… again, oops.
And congrats on the meta-fail logic there. First, attempting the logical fallacy of 'because Mike is wrong about patents, he must be wrong here', and dash in a bit of strawman since patents have nothing to do with this. And top that all off with the fact that "Mike is wrong about patents" is your opinion (evidenced by the fact that you support your claim with exactly nothing, but still say “demonstrably wrong”), and we have a nice pile of fail. Great way to start your week. Hopefully, nowhere to go but up.
On the post: Judge Says Making It Harder To Exercise Free Speech Does Not Create Substantial Hardship
Re:
The judge here is saying that it's not clear whether it's a First Amendment violation... just that even if it is, it does not represent a 'substantial hardship'.
But hey, gives you a chance to take another swing at Mike and all us 'freetards', so who cares about facts, right?
On the post: Judge Says Making It Harder To Exercise Free Speech Does Not Create Substantial Hardship
Re:
And no one here ever said that the small amounts of free speech excuses the (possibly) illegal, and thus unprotected, speech. We're saying that the First Amendment has been upheld that you cannot block protected speech (no matter how comparatively small it may be) in the effort to stop unprotected speech.
On the post: Let Them Tweet Cake
Re:
COOOOOBRAAAAAAA!
On the post: Let Them Tweet Cake
If SHE doesn't...
...she might just advocate it. I wouldn't have mentioned this if I didn't know about it from my good friends at Cracked. I’m not saying she does advocate this… just that it exists and is therefore a possibility.
Do yourself a favor and just skip to number 3. I'm not responsible for any mental damage from reading the rest of that list.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19344_6-progressive-parenting-fads-you-wont-believe-are-legal_p2. html
On the post: Our Response To Arthur Alan Wolk's Threat To Sue Us
Mr. Wolk
I truly hope you career is ruined and ended over this because it will have been by your own actions and you'll have that wonderful opportunity to see the outcome of your choices and actions.
So in closing, you're a dick.
On the post: Our Response To Arthur Alan Wolk's Threat To Sue Us
Re:
Next >>