Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Feb 2012 @ 10:24am
Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
Taking something that does not belong to you is stealing
Like.... that breath you just took of air that doesn't belong to you?
Or that pebble you picked up off a beach on holiday?
Or all that water that evaporated from the local reservior and fell as rain on YOUR house?
Or that bird that got stuck in the grill of your car?
Yes, I know that's tenuous, but if you're going to say stupid stuff then I get to as well.
"Ownership" is a tenuous enough fabrication of society anyway and not some universal truth. Trying to apply it to an entirely imaginary concept and call it the same makes no sense.
Try taking a breath from foaming at the mouth, think about what it is you think you "own", then have a reasoned debate about it why don't you?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 3 Feb 2012 @ 1:37pm
Re: Re: Re:
Sooooo when it's jobs the technology cuts requirements (jobs) wildly, but when it comes to content company profits it's perfectly reasonable for them to demand the same price for the digital product as for the physical? Double standard much?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 2:13pm
Got there at last....
It's so wonderful to see you Americans finally coming round a a "proper" British interpretation of Free Speech. I.e. "You can say anything you like as long as it's considered 'Acceptable'". Bravo.. well done! [polite clap]
/sarc
Fast forward 10 years I can see a game show question:
Host: "What was considered the foremost document of civil rights in the last century"
Contestant: "Ummmmm.. that would be the 'Constipation' Bob?"
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:20am
more obvious or too obvious?
From what I understand about US law, the question that sprang to mind is "What happens if the defendant is in the armed forces?" Is it still "just embarrassment" then?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:15am
Re: Re:
Use "ifconfig" to get your IP address
Nah! Means he's a geek.... IPConfig = Windows, ifconfig = Unix/Linux and I think he was talking about intra-house streaming rather than out to internet.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 4:24am
Virtual is confusing
It almost seems like corporations are trying to blur the lines between virtual goods and services and ideas in the same way they blur the lines between physical and virtual goods when it suits them. That and a massive sense of entitlement that seems to claim "If it goes anywhere near something we once thought of we're owed some money for it... right?"
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 2:17am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
OK Your brain is stuck on "if you use something someone else created, or even thought of, in any way and don't pay that person for it then it's exactly the same as stealing actual money directly of their pockets" as well it seems as the idea that if you create something that society owes you a payday for it. You seem so upset by the idea that it might not be true you're starting to descend into ad-hom ranting. I can't argue with that so I won't. Good luck with that.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 2:16am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
OK Your brain is stuck on "if you use something someone else created, or even thought of, in any way and don't pay that person for it then it's exactly the same as stealing actual money directly of their pockets" as well it seems as the idea that if you create something that society owes you a payday for it. You seem so upset by the idea that it might not be true you're starting to descend into ad-hom ranting. I can't argue with that so I won't. Good luck with that.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 10:29am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Oh dear where do I start?
Of course it's less...because everyone EXCEPT the labels knows how to keep costs down.
You still seem to be trying to suggest that large amounts of label-produced albums cost in the region of $55M including marketing etc and I still haven't seen any evidence or even logic to support that.
I do so expecting they were mastered and recorded on the best equipment to produce the best sound.
Way to distort the point. The out-of context quote you referred to was distinctly talking about CAMERAS in response to your own contention about the cost of them. I'd partially agree that the quality of the equipment used to produce the music is important for music, but costs for good equipment have come down significantly and for some types of music the the difference between "pro" and "done on a PC" would seem to be speed, usability, complexity and convenience rather than necessarily end result. So let's sling a couple of hundred grand on to your $20K for producing a video and using better sound kit and then multiply by 10 to allow for marketing etc. Are we anywhere near $55M yet?
Using that logic though, it would be ok for me to steal my textbooks instead of buying them because it's "natural for humans to share ideas and info."
Aaaaand you try the old standby of "copying something is the same as theft" argument. You can argue that copying is wrong all you like and I might be convinced by no way EVER can you legitimately argue it's even REMOTELY the same as physically depriving someone of something. It's just not and any attempt to claim otherwise shows either a lack of thought or a deliberate falsehood for other motives.
Well obviously the concrete cost is that the artist isn't getting the $5 or $10 they charge for the album.
And perhaps right there his the huge gaping hole in your reasoning that makes it fail every time. You can argue that the album cost is a "damage" cost, though even that's fraught with about a billion factors as to whether the copy would ever have been a purchase if the copy hadn't existed. What you cannot do is claim it is a "concrete cost".. ever. A "lost sale" is not a concrete cost it is imaginary money that never existed, a potential sale and there is nothing even faintly concrete about it as nothing has been removed from anywhere, neither money nor goods.
Otherwise the artist is still getting screwed.
Please explain how when the artist is out no money or time or effort or resources in any of the hypotheticals described?
but if only half those fans buy the album and the rest pirate it, that number is down to 5000
again you're fallaciously equating a copy made as a direct 1-to-1 against a lost album sale. There may be an argument to be made about lost money in album sales from copies, but you know it sounds ludicrous when you try and make a claim of a 1-to-1 relationship.. right?
Lol! That's not even a HALF percent sale rate. Not to say that the sales aren't appreciated of course, but come on. 3 sales out of 50 potential ones doesn't even make a dent in expenses. Would you try to sell your product for that joke of a sale rate?
I'm on a hiding to nothing here, but try looking at it another way and see if it prompts an idea. Assume that the 50 people wouldn't have heard it any other way other than listening to a friend's, who happened to copy it (or bought it, doesn't really matter either way). Then see that it cost the artist nothing for them to hear it. Then see that, even if the other 47 copy it without paying, that the artist has 3 more sales than would have happened otherwise. Not 48 less imaginary sales, but 3 extra real sales. Which is better for the artist? Look at it that way then come up with an opposing argument not based in imagination.
Obviously that's not possible because of the first amendment. But that is akin to asking if it's illegal to just take a magazine or a book out of a store without buying it because info and ideas should be shared; maybe in theory it's a good idea, but large teams of people worked to create that stuff. So it's kind of silly to expect things like music or a magazine to be free.
So your position is "yes every hearing and every view of copyrighted material should be payed for if only I could work out how to charge for it".
But you already pay to listen, even if you don't buy an album. If you have a satellite radio in your car, that costs you a monthly fee; if you have a satellite tv that also has the same stations, that also costs you a fee
That's a lot of if's based around SERVICE PROVISION and not content and didn't answer the question, well except you answered it by implication in the previous bit.
The reason why I'm saying people should actually buy the album, hopefully directly from the artist, is because they make the most money that way because there aren't other fingers in the pie.
So basically your argument is that people should buy albums because that makes you alright rather than commenting on how the system in general works or should work. And I thought this was talking about a generic problem....
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 5:14am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus the Pirate.
you're still ignoring that good ole JC still wouldn't share something created by someone else without their permission first.
Well I'm not a bible expert but google serves. Here you go:
As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it’s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.” 16 Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.” 17 “We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish,” they answered.
18 “Bring them here to me,” he said. 19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the people. 20 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over.
21 The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children
With reference to the text can you explain where Jesus asks for permission to copy and distribute what he is given in response to his demand? Or are you perhaps just making an assumption based on his PR?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 2:53pm
Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
Yes. But US laws are insufficient to stop foreign based websites offering counterfeit and/or infringing merchandise to the American public. Current US law can deal with violations in the US or websites registered in the US.
Short of the US invading every country on the planet and enforcing their idea of law with an iron hand in each one, I don't see any law is going to stop that and even the British Empire wasn't stupid enough to try that one despite owning about 1/3 of the planet. So again, what makes you think this law is suddenly the magic bullet? How exactly do you imagine this is going to affect websites that are by their very definition not subject to US law?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 2:44pm
Re: Creative America's Letter Count
1. At creativeamerica.org we have generated, last I looked 5-10 minutes ago, 4195 email letters to the House.
2. At our change.org page, where we generate email petitions/letters to Congress, we have, last I looked, 33,286
So in fact Mike's figures were pretty accurate as well as where the 100,000 total came from. Slightly curious as to why you'd point out the same thing so stridently except to try and suggest some sort of dishonesty.
However, like others replying, I would suggest that the actual number of supporters is rather more relevant than the number of letters sent. After all, the average spammer has probably sent congressmen more than 100,000 "letters" suggesting how great viagra is and it doesn't mean there's a national movement supporting the increase in stiffys.
I'm willing to be convinced, but hiding behind tenuous numbers weakens your position with anyone that cares to look for more than a second rather than portraying strength in numbers. If you think you have the weight of public opion on your side then show it honestly and show the reasoned arguments why.
While we're on the subject of reasoned arguments:
Why people don't understand this is theft is beyond me. Do you steal from the grocery store? Do you walk into a Starbucks and just take what you want without paying? Do you go to the mall, try on the clothes you like and take them home? No, because you know it's theft and you know it's not only ethically wrong but it's illegal.
This is not one and holding it up as an example of support also tends to undermine your position. It suggests to me someone who is hurt and wanting to punish and there's a reason that sane justice systems don't let victims decide on the punishment to be enacted. I can understand their position and frustration since it probably is pretty tough to be an independant film maker in the current locked down studio dominated evvironment. However the old "file sharing is theft" thing is getting pretty tired and every time I see it my natural inclination is to discount the opinion of anyone who says it as someone who has bought the soundbites rather than thinking it through for themselves.
I think there's a debate to be had about file sharing and how right or wrong it is but however wrong file sharing may or may not be, comparing it to taking physical goods is obviously wildly innacurate and suggests the rest of the person's opionion is likely to be equally pejoratively coloured. I'm willing to be convinced, but I have yet to see anyone on that side if the "debate" coming up with a much more reasoned argument. And I don't buy it, any more than I buy the "everything should be free" argument on the extreme of the other side (though at least that is the extreme on that side rather than the entire argument).
So, you know, feel free to come back with your best arguments and reasoning. I'd love hear it and I'm pretty sure a lot of other people here would too.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 7:22am
Re: Arrogant Blockheads
Ever hear that smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and other consumer electronics are being counterfeited? Complete down to the fake UL seal? You think firefighters might have an interest in making sure crap like that gets removed from the homes they protect?
Not to pour fuel on the fire (see what I did there?) when you're all trolled-up, but aren't there already a number of laws against that kind of thing specifically? I'm pretty sure faking a standards seal is already illegal in the US, no? I hear trademark infringement is also considered naughty already. What is it that makes you think yet another law will work better this time?
The rest was just the usual bile-filled rant so I'll ignore that bit. Probably should have ignored the lot but hey-ho.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 2:56am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick vs. Masnick and friends
The DOJ saves it time and energy for especially egregious conduct. Hence, the dearth of prosecutions for criminal copyright infringement.
Ah.. I see. So in fact you're saying "well EVERYONE is a criminal but we'll just choose which ones we actually prosecute for it because there isn't anything in the law that defines 'especially egregious' other than what we feel like on the day".
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 2:50am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
I totally agree 55M just to produce an album is a bit silly. :P But that number probably is realistic if it includes all the costs like marketing, studio time
Impressive how you manage to both agree it's silly and claim it's justified in the same sentence then go on to dismiss the whole thing since I'm "not in the industry". I can however count and I know no-one is going to spend that kind of money unless they expect to make more than that back and that's only likely for the (very generously) 1% of megastars.
So any way you slice it a "normal" album must cost significantly less than that to produce marketing and all - like by several factors - and holding an extreme of the scale up as an example of cost is artful at best.
As for the cost of professional cameras, well we're talking about music here aren't we? I know a music video is considered a vital part of the thing these days (though I'm not totally convinced - I've bought plenty of music without even knowing what the artist looks like), but even so in this day and age "professional equipment" is hardly necessary. If you don't think so, then see the article where a major director shot a whole film on an iPhone. Again not saying this or using the excellent camcorders available should be the standard but suggesting a multi-million dollar video production is necessary to sell an album is a little misleading.
The $55M bring up an interesting question though. It makes me wonder how much of the profit from an album that costs that much to make was actually made from album sales given what portion of sale would actually go against that total, and how much difference it would have made to the profits if the album itself had been distributed for free or close to as part of the "marketing" effort.
Nothing is wrong with ripping the songs into a new format as long as you actually bought the album or the individual songs.
I totally agree with you, which begs the question; why is it illegal?
It's not right to just pirate it or borrow from a friend and rip it off of theirs when the artist isn't getting paid.
"Right" or not, it's a natural part of how humans interact and always has been - we communicate and share ideas and experiences and no matter how much law and how much ranting and raving happens it's not going to change. Can you explain why it's "not right"? Other than a nebulous "well the artist made it
he should get paid for it" argument? I'm not saying you're wrong, I've just never heard an argument as to why it's so that doesn't involve a vaguely moral high-horse.
To play devils advocate and perhaps prompt an answer that might have substance, let me ask some questions:
What is the concrete cost to the artist of the copy?
What do you imagine the "damage" cost to the artist is for the copy and why?
Does it make a difference to the "damage" if a copy is made but never played? Or played once and ignored/deleted?
Does it make a difference whether the copy is listened to only by the person that made it or played to others?
Does it make a difference if the copy is played to others that otherwise would likely not have heard it?
What if the copy is played to 50 people, 3 of which go out and buy a copy because they heard it?
Should it be illegal to listen to music at all without paying for it?
If so, how do you think this should be achieved? Should per listening? Per song?
If not, where's the line?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 8:18am
Re: Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
The sites should be required to know who they are dealing with, and should be able to prove the rights they have to use it. This isn't just the "music in the back of the baby dancing video" sort of crap, this is remixes, videos, and others.
This is artful the the point of disingenuous. In many many cases it is unclear who owns the rights to any given bit of content or the component parts thereof, or even whether the component parts you may think it is made up of are the ones it is made up of since almost all content is already derivative of earlier works that may, or may not be in the public domain. Together with a ton other ways to muddy the waters, even the supposed rights holders sometimes seem not to know, or claim rights where none exist.
So are you suggesting that it is the responsibility of a service provider like Youtube to legally check the provenance of every single one of the 35 or so hours of content being uploaded to it every minute? Or are you rather suggesting that each Youtube uploader should come armed with affidavits and perhaps a court ruling before being allowed to upload content?
Either way, this flailing around and railing against "those evil raporist piraty websites" strikes me as kind of like the catholic church deciding that sex is immoral and then tackling it by banning condoms and birth control.
It's not complicated stuff.
Yes, sadly thanks to the ludicrous current situation with wildly overreaching IP law it really really is. If IP law were clear and fair and reasonable instead of the horribly tangled, massively overinflated and biased mess it is, you'd have a lot less infringement and a much better chance of actually doing something a decent portion of the rest. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that's not what you want though.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:59am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick vs. Masnick and friends
One should never let historical data associated with the prosecution of criminal copyright infringement (about as rare as they come) get in the way of presenting specious hypotheticals "proving" that elected officials are clueless.
So you're saying it won't make a difference anyway because even if it does pass it won't be successfully used enough to affect a significant number of people? Can you explain then how passing a law known to be ineffective doesn't come under the definition of clueless? (Ideally without the obvious answer of "because they got a big fat donation to do so")
On the post: Paramount Wants To Talk To Students About How They're All Thieves & Then Ask For Ideas On What To Do
Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
Like.... that breath you just took of air that doesn't belong to you?
Or that pebble you picked up off a beach on holiday?
Or all that water that evaporated from the local reservior and fell as rain on YOUR house?
Or that bird that got stuck in the grill of your car?
Yes, I know that's tenuous, but if you're going to say stupid stuff then I get to as well.
"Ownership" is a tenuous enough fabrication of society anyway and not some universal truth. Trying to apply it to an entirely imaginary concept and call it the same makes no sense.
Try taking a breath from foaming at the mouth, think about what it is you think you "own", then have a reasoned debate about it why don't you?
On the post: If Politicians Pushing SOPA/PIPA Want To Create Jobs, They Should Support The Internet -- And Stop Treating Copyright Companies As Special
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Documentary Filmmaker Arrested At Congressional Hearing For Filming With A Different Opinion
Got there at last....
/sarc
Fast forward 10 years I can see a game show question:
Host: "What was considered the foremost document of civil rights in the last century"
Contestant: "Ummmmm.. that would be the 'Constipation' Bob?"
On the post: Good Content Doesn't Get Buried By Bad Content
Re: Re: Re: Mike for Net Filters !!
On the post: Court Says That Outing Closeted Gays Through Mass Infringement Lawsuits Not A Big Deal
more obvious or too obvious?
On the post: Apps Letting You Stream Your Own Music From The Cloud Being Pressured Over 'Licensing'
Re: Re:
Nah! Means he's a geek.... IPConfig = Windows, ifconfig = Unix/Linux and I think he was talking about intra-house streaming rather than out to internet.
On the post: Apps Letting You Stream Your Own Music From The Cloud Being Pressured Over 'Licensing'
Virtual is confusing
On the post: Toughest Job In All Of Showbiz? Trying To Teach Major Record Labels How To Adapt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
On the post: Toughest Job In All Of Showbiz? Trying To Teach Major Record Labels How To Adapt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
On the post: Toughest Job In All Of Showbiz? Trying To Teach Major Record Labels How To Adapt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
You still seem to be trying to suggest that large amounts of label-produced albums cost in the region of $55M including marketing etc and I still haven't seen any evidence or even logic to support that.
Way to distort the point. The out-of context quote you referred to was distinctly talking about CAMERAS in response to your own contention about the cost of them. I'd partially agree that the quality of the equipment used to produce the music is important for music, but costs for good equipment have come down significantly and for some types of music the the difference between "pro" and "done on a PC" would seem to be speed, usability, complexity and convenience rather than necessarily end result. So let's sling a couple of hundred grand on to your $20K for producing a video and using better sound kit and then multiply by 10 to allow for marketing etc. Are we anywhere near $55M yet?
Aaaaand you try the old standby of "copying something is the same as theft" argument. You can argue that copying is wrong all you like and I might be convinced by no way EVER can you legitimately argue it's even REMOTELY the same as physically depriving someone of something. It's just not and any attempt to claim otherwise shows either a lack of thought or a deliberate falsehood for other motives.
And perhaps right there his the huge gaping hole in your reasoning that makes it fail every time. You can argue that the album cost is a "damage" cost, though even that's fraught with about a billion factors as to whether the copy would ever have been a purchase if the copy hadn't existed. What you cannot do is claim it is a "concrete cost".. ever. A "lost sale" is not a concrete cost it is imaginary money that never existed, a potential sale and there is nothing even faintly concrete about it as nothing has been removed from anywhere, neither money nor goods.
Please explain how when the artist is out no money or time or effort or resources in any of the hypotheticals described?
again you're fallaciously equating a copy made as a direct 1-to-1 against a lost album sale. There may be an argument to be made about lost money in album sales from copies, but you know it sounds ludicrous when you try and make a claim of a 1-to-1 relationship.. right?
I'm on a hiding to nothing here, but try looking at it another way and see if it prompts an idea. Assume that the 50 people wouldn't have heard it any other way other than listening to a friend's, who happened to copy it (or bought it, doesn't really matter either way). Then see that it cost the artist nothing for them to hear it. Then see that, even if the other 47 copy it without paying, that the artist has 3 more sales than would have happened otherwise. Not 48 less imaginary sales, but 3 extra real sales. Which is better for the artist? Look at it that way then come up with an opposing argument not based in imagination.
So your position is "yes every hearing and every view of copyrighted material should be payed for if only I could work out how to charge for it".
That's a lot of if's based around SERVICE PROVISION and not content and didn't answer the question, well except you answered it by implication in the previous bit.
So basically your argument is that people should buy albums because that makes you alright rather than commenting on how the system in general works or should work. And I thought this was talking about a generic problem....
On the post: Well, If Firefighters Support E-PARASITE Law... Then You Know It Must Make Sense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus the Pirate.
Well I'm not a bible expert but google serves. Here you go:
With reference to the text can you explain where Jesus asks for permission to copy and distribute what he is given in response to his demand? Or are you perhaps just making an assumption based on his PR?
On the post: Well, If Firefighters Support E-PARASITE Law... Then You Know It Must Make Sense
Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
Short of the US invading every country on the planet and enforcing their idea of law with an iron hand in each one, I don't see any law is going to stop that and even the British Empire wasn't stupid enough to try that one despite owning about 1/3 of the planet. So again, what makes you think this law is suddenly the magic bullet? How exactly do you imagine this is going to affect websites that are by their very definition not subject to US law?
On the post: Hollywood Front Group Rounds Up 4,000 Letters Sent To Congress, Pretending It's 100,000
Re: Creative America's Letter Count
So in fact Mike's figures were pretty accurate as well as where the 100,000 total came from. Slightly curious as to why you'd point out the same thing so stridently except to try and suggest some sort of dishonesty.
However, like others replying, I would suggest that the actual number of supporters is rather more relevant than the number of letters sent. After all, the average spammer has probably sent congressmen more than 100,000 "letters" suggesting how great viagra is and it doesn't mean there's a national movement supporting the increase in stiffys.
I'm willing to be convinced, but hiding behind tenuous numbers weakens your position with anyone that cares to look for more than a second rather than portraying strength in numbers. If you think you have the weight of public opion on your side then show it honestly and show the reasoned arguments why.
While we're on the subject of reasoned arguments:
This is not one and holding it up as an example of support also tends to undermine your position. It suggests to me someone who is hurt and wanting to punish and there's a reason that sane justice systems don't let victims decide on the punishment to be enacted. I can understand their position and frustration since it probably is pretty tough to be an independant film maker in the current locked down studio dominated evvironment. However the old "file sharing is theft" thing is getting pretty tired and every time I see it my natural inclination is to discount the opinion of anyone who says it as someone who has bought the soundbites rather than thinking it through for themselves.
I think there's a debate to be had about file sharing and how right or wrong it is but however wrong file sharing may or may not be, comparing it to taking physical goods is obviously wildly innacurate and suggests the rest of the person's opionion is likely to be equally pejoratively coloured. I'm willing to be convinced, but I have yet to see anyone on that side if the "debate" coming up with a much more reasoned argument. And I don't buy it, any more than I buy the "everything should be free" argument on the extreme of the other side (though at least that is the extreme on that side rather than the entire argument).
So, you know, feel free to come back with your best arguments and reasoning. I'd love hear it and I'm pretty sure a lot of other people here would too.
On the post: Hollywood Front Group Rounds Up 4,000 Letters Sent To Congress, Pretending It's 100,000
Re: You mean Hollywood inflates the numbers to suit its own interests?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...
On the post: Hollywood Front Group Rounds Up 4,000 Letters Sent To Congress, Pretending It's 100,000
It's NOT a lie.....!
On the post: Well, If Firefighters Support E-PARASITE Law... Then You Know It Must Make Sense
Re: Arrogant Blockheads
Not to pour fuel on the fire (see what I did there?) when you're all trolled-up, but aren't there already a number of laws against that kind of thing specifically? I'm pretty sure faking a standards seal is already illegal in the US, no? I hear trademark infringement is also considered naughty already. What is it that makes you think yet another law will work better this time?
The rest was just the usual bile-filled rant so I'll ignore that bit. Probably should have ignored the lot but hey-ho.
On the post: Do The Authors Of The Felony Streaming Bills Even Know What The Details Of Their Own Bills Mean?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick vs. Masnick and friends
Ah.. I see. So in fact you're saying "well EVERYONE is a criminal but we'll just choose which ones we actually prosecute for it because there isn't anything in the law that defines 'especially egregious' other than what we feel like on the day".
Yes, that's much better.
On the post: Toughest Job In All Of Showbiz? Trying To Teach Major Record Labels How To Adapt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Impressive how you manage to both agree it's silly and claim it's justified in the same sentence then go on to dismiss the whole thing since I'm "not in the industry". I can however count and I know no-one is going to spend that kind of money unless they expect to make more than that back and that's only likely for the (very generously) 1% of megastars.
So any way you slice it a "normal" album must cost significantly less than that to produce marketing and all - like by several factors - and holding an extreme of the scale up as an example of cost is artful at best.
As for the cost of professional cameras, well we're talking about music here aren't we? I know a music video is considered a vital part of the thing these days (though I'm not totally convinced - I've bought plenty of music without even knowing what the artist looks like), but even so in this day and age "professional equipment" is hardly necessary. If you don't think so, then see the article where a major director shot a whole film on an iPhone. Again not saying this or using the excellent camcorders available should be the standard but suggesting a multi-million dollar video production is necessary to sell an album is a little misleading.
The $55M bring up an interesting question though. It makes me wonder how much of the profit from an album that costs that much to make was actually made from album sales given what portion of sale would actually go against that total, and how much difference it would have made to the profits if the album itself had been distributed for free or close to as part of the "marketing" effort.
I totally agree with you, which begs the question; why is it illegal?
"Right" or not, it's a natural part of how humans interact and always has been - we communicate and share ideas and experiences and no matter how much law and how much ranting and raving happens it's not going to change. Can you explain why it's "not right"? Other than a nebulous "well the artist made it
he should get paid for it" argument? I'm not saying you're wrong, I've just never heard an argument as to why it's so that doesn't involve a vaguely moral high-horse.
To play devils advocate and perhaps prompt an answer that might have substance, let me ask some questions:
What is the concrete cost to the artist of the copy?
What do you imagine the "damage" cost to the artist is for the copy and why?
Does it make a difference to the "damage" if a copy is made but never played? Or played once and ignored/deleted?
Does it make a difference whether the copy is listened to only by the person that made it or played to others?
Does it make a difference if the copy is played to others that otherwise would likely not have heard it?
What if the copy is played to 50 people, 3 of which go out and buy a copy because they heard it?
Should it be illegal to listen to music at all without paying for it?
If so, how do you think this should be achieved? Should per listening? Per song?
If not, where's the line?
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce So Clueless It Thinks You Have To Be 'Anti-IP' To Be Against E-PARASITE Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
This is artful the the point of disingenuous. In many many cases it is unclear who owns the rights to any given bit of content or the component parts thereof, or even whether the component parts you may think it is made up of are the ones it is made up of since almost all content is already derivative of earlier works that may, or may not be in the public domain. Together with a ton other ways to muddy the waters, even the supposed rights holders sometimes seem not to know, or claim rights where none exist.
So are you suggesting that it is the responsibility of a service provider like Youtube to legally check the provenance of every single one of the 35 or so hours of content being uploaded to it every minute? Or are you rather suggesting that each Youtube uploader should come armed with affidavits and perhaps a court ruling before being allowed to upload content?
Either way, this flailing around and railing against "those evil raporist piraty websites" strikes me as kind of like the catholic church deciding that sex is immoral and then tackling it by banning condoms and birth control.
Yes, sadly thanks to the ludicrous current situation with wildly overreaching IP law it really really is. If IP law were clear and fair and reasonable instead of the horribly tangled, massively overinflated and biased mess it is, you'd have a lot less infringement and a much better chance of actually doing something a decent portion of the rest. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that's not what you want though.
On the post: Do The Authors Of The Felony Streaming Bills Even Know What The Details Of Their Own Bills Mean?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick vs. Masnick and friends
So you're saying it won't make a difference anyway because even if it does pass it won't be successfully used enough to affect a significant number of people? Can you explain then how passing a law known to be ineffective doesn't come under the definition of clueless? (Ideally without the obvious answer of "because they got a big fat donation to do so")
Next >>