Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 4:00am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
eejit, it's a great example of what the movie and music industries CANNOT do. What do you want them to do, ship the music with the middle missing on every song, or the movie with the last 10 minutes missing (and you have to download it online to see it)?
Selling the scarce in the end is a bullshit way to operate, because the vast majority of your potential customers don't want the scarce, they just want the initial product. Trying to find the small percentage that will over pay in order to keep tossing freeware out to the masses is a business model built to fail.
That has to be about the most narrow-minded and dismissive-of-reality viewpoint I've seen.... maybe ever.
However, let us for the sake of argument assume you are right and it is impossible to make money off infinite goods by selling scarce goods and service around them. The obvious answer then is;
DON'T pay $55M in costs to make something you can't sell. Spending all that money then whining to the government and anyone else who will listen that no-one is giving you your money back is hardly a long-term winning strategy. Pretending that the infinite thing is scarce is a head-hiding trick that only ever works on the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal.
Assuming you are right then migrate out of the business of selling music as it no longer has a sustainable market and move onto something else.
Will music disappear if this happens? Hell no! It'll be made as it always has been.
How will people get it? Probably in the way described above with very low up-front costs.
Will there still be global superstar bands with gazillion dollar tours and stage shows? Maybe, but probably not in this scenario.
Will that be a bad thing? Debatable, but irrelevant - if the economics don't sustain them you don't get to do them anyway.
Will there be megabucks available in making music? In this scenario almost certainly not.
Will there be a decent profit available to be had making music? Definitely especially for those good and/or savvy.
Bottom line, even on the vanishingly small chance that you are right.. you're still soooo wrong.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 1:17pm
Um.
Even worse, the note said that if she didn't respond within 90 days, the royalties would go to Universal, because they give preference when songs are claimed directly by a label.
Is it just me or is there something deeply wrong with that statement? The default position is that royalties go to a label that claims them? That's because an artist is very unlikely to own their own material, right? So copyright is for the benefit of creators... how, exactly?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 18 Oct 2011 @ 1:41am
I wonder.....
... if this means "time" will now be shut off for random timezones because the DHS has determined that time is a major factor in piracy (synonymous with terrorism of course) and asks ICANN nicely?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 15 Sep 2011 @ 10:21am
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, this post is just another example of how no one can bring the 'fringe' when it comes to infringement better than Mike Masnick...
Struck me that the author of the original piece was, like many others, seeking an analogy that might finally get through to maximalists just how insane the relatively recent explosion of claims of rent and "rights" over everything tangible or intangible is. I am unsurprised again to find that De Nile is not just a river in Africa....
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 12 Sep 2011 @ 4:49am
Re: Serious Business
I would guess it is the same with "prostitution" on that list. People from countries where it is legal would not consider it a crime at all, and find bizarre that it is called a "serious crime" in the UK
Somewhat entertainingly as far as I am aware "prostitution" itself is actually not a crime in the UK. "Soliciting (i.e. street corners)" yes, "Running/keeping a Brothel" yes, "trafficing and forced prostitution" yes, but actually selling sex not so much. And yes that's probably equally as stupid and contradictory as much of UK law so it should be right at home with this mind-bendingly dumb, draconian and (as usual) badly thought through plan.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 2 Sep 2011 @ 11:15am
Ubisoft doesn't get it indeed...
... it's absolutely not about "getting it for free" and very much about something that works.
Looking up at the shelf above my computer right now I can see 11 Ubisoft games, all purchased and most recieved as presents.
The last 2 were so annoyingly awkward to use and limited because of the ever increasing DRM that I won't be buying or asking for another. Congratulations Ubisoft, your amazing grasp of your customers' drivers has cost you another one. Keep it up.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 20 Aug 2011 @ 8:22am
Am I just being picky....?
.... and taking copyright law to its ludicrously logical conclusion, or:
Plaintiff attempts to obscure these “peripheral” differences by cropping and rotating the Gordon Image and converting the McGinley image to black and white.
does not changing the image in this way constitute creating a derivative image and therefore copyright violation in its own right?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 7:34am
Re: Re: Do patents help startups
Big companies are almost always too slow, too bureaucratic, too unresponsive, suffering from "Not Invented Here" syndrome, full of their own importance and held back by bad management.
Maybe so but that doesn't seem to stop them coming up with some vague patent they claim to own and "legalling" the smaller startup out of existence if they perceive competition, whether they eventually come up with a product themselves or not.
A strong, focused, agile patent system might offer the little guy protection. The current one seems biased way in favour of the mammoth.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Aug 2011 @ 6:59am
Re:
This is a silly straw man that you guys throw out all too often. The incentivizing takes place before the creation, not after it. Obviously no one is incentivized to create something after they've already created it.
Soooooo.... you're saying that the prospect of keeping a corporation you've never heard of in cash 50 years after you die inspires you to write a song? OK.... weird, but at least it has more internal logic than most counter arguments in here.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Aug 2011 @ 1:44am
Supporting "piracy"?
What's the spread on the number of weeks it takes for someone to get sued for doing exactly what Bjork "told" them to do?
I honestly can't see what anyone involved gets out of this, even any "exclusive content" kudos for Apple would seem a bit limited by such a draconian approach to it that's literally begging to be ripped off.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 6:10pm
Re: masnick is not a lawyer... good.
Seriously guy, you can't come up with a better argument than telling someone you don't like he's a crap lawyer when he's quoting a lawyer? So he kicked your puppy.. get over it already and make a point.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 3:28pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure. Because in the real world, when you hear "Facebook," you don't think it refers to a particular company or source of social networking services, right?
Nope, like you presumably I think of the well known site Facebook. On the other hand anything else I hear named including the standard English words "face" or "book" at most I will think "yeah so thats where they got the idea for the name from" if it happens to be a concatenation of 2 single syllable words rather than thinking of any association between the 2 that might induce any kind of "confusion".
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 10:40am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The story in the end isn't about Facebook. It's just Mike working for page views and pandering to the "sky is falling" crowd.
I'd see it as more pandering to the "If only laws made sense and had relevance to the real world and how humans interact" crowd..... but that's just me.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 3 Aug 2011 @ 6:53am
Re: Apple vs. Google
Apple warned Google about introducing multitouch features in Android, and now is just doing what promised; clearly they start from the most successful product, which happens to be Galaxy.
Er... I'll admit I've not been following this that closely so no idea what patents are being contested, but how does Apple claim to have any kind of multi-touch patent in general or even specifically for pinch-zoom?
Surely things like Microsoft Surface pre-date iPhone and have the same functionality? Or is the patent system perhaps so broken as to allow that "doing exactly the same thing on a little device instead of a big one" is innovative enough to warrant a patent?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 16 Jul 2011 @ 5:18am
Re: ANTIQUE TECH, been done for at least a century.
a CENTURY? I'm fairly sure that the concept of "customer service" has been around for millenia.... I realise that's hard to grasp when so many corporations these days not to mention many individuals think they have a *right* to be paid no matter what but giving a little something back will *always* ultimately get you more than demanding.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 7:59am
Oh, dear me!
Dammit, there's no voting buttons for articles! I spent quite some time after I picked myself up off the floor looking for a "SO funny I damn near soiled myself!" button. Very, very well written sir! *doffs cap* extra points for being funny and having a very valid point at the same time.
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: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
That has to be about the most narrow-minded and dismissive-of-reality viewpoint I've seen.... maybe ever.
However, let us for the sake of argument assume you are right and it is impossible to make money off infinite goods by selling scarce goods and service around them. The obvious answer then is;
DON'T pay $55M in costs to make something you can't sell. Spending all that money then whining to the government and anyone else who will listen that no-one is giving you your money back is hardly a long-term winning strategy. Pretending that the infinite thing is scarce is a head-hiding trick that only ever works on the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal.
Assuming you are right then migrate out of the business of selling music as it no longer has a sustainable market and move onto something else.
Will music disappear if this happens? Hell no! It'll be made as it always has been.
How will people get it? Probably in the way described above with very low up-front costs.
Will there still be global superstar bands with gazillion dollar tours and stage shows? Maybe, but probably not in this scenario.
Will that be a bad thing? Debatable, but irrelevant - if the economics don't sustain them you don't get to do them anyway.
Will there be megabucks available in making music? In this scenario almost certainly not.
Will there be a decent profit available to be had making music? Definitely especially for those good and/or savvy.
Bottom line, even on the vanishingly small chance that you are right.. you're still soooo wrong.
On the post: Universal Music Keeps Trying To Claim Zoe Keating's Royalty Checks, Despite Having Nothing To Do With Her
Um.
Is it just me or is there something deeply wrong with that statement? The default position is that royalties go to a label that claims them? That's because an artist is very unlikely to own their own material, right? So copyright is for the benefit of creators... how, exactly?
On the post: ICANN Takes Over Time Zone Database; Dares Astrolabe To Sue
I wonder.....
On the post: It's Only A Miracle If You're Not In The Business Of Selling Loaves & Fishes
Re: Re: Re:
Struck me that the author of the original piece was, like many others, seeking an analogy that might finally get through to maximalists just how insane the relatively recent explosion of claims of rent and "rights" over everything tangible or intangible is. I am unsurprised again to find that De Nile is not just a river in Africa....
On the post: UK Proposal Would Allow Police To Seize Domain Names Without A Court Order
Re:
More "Inspector Clouseau" than "Judge Dredd" to my mind. Definitely more farcical than Sci-Fi..... "I am the Lieurre, you nieuow!".
On the post: UK Proposal Would Allow Police To Seize Domain Names Without A Court Order
Re: Serious Business
Somewhat entertainingly as far as I am aware "prostitution" itself is actually not a crime in the UK. "Soliciting (i.e. street corners)" yes, "Running/keeping a Brothel" yes, "trafficing and forced prostitution" yes, but actually selling sex not so much. And yes that's probably equally as stupid and contradictory as much of UK law so it should be right at home with this mind-bendingly dumb, draconian and (as usual) badly thought through plan.
On the post: If Your Business Strategy Relies On Suing Others, You're Not A Business, You're A Leech On The System
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Debate Time: Ubisoft Says DRM Is Needed, Valve Says No It Isn't.
Ubisoft doesn't get it indeed...
Looking up at the shelf above my computer right now I can see 11 Ubisoft games, all purchased and most recieved as presents.
The last 2 were so annoyingly awkward to use and limited because of the ever increasing DRM that I won't be buying or asking for another. Congratulations Ubisoft, your amazing grasp of your customers' drivers has cost you another one. Keep it up.
On the post: Judge Slams Photographer For Bogus Copyright Lawsuit: Says Use Some Common Sense, Points Out 'Utter Lack Of Similarity'
Am I just being picky....?
does not changing the image in this way constitute creating a derivative image and therefore copyright violation in its own right?
On the post: Do We Really Want The First To Come Up With An Invention To Own The Market?
Re: Re: Do patents help startups
Maybe so but that doesn't seem to stop them coming up with some vague patent they claim to own and "legalling" the smaller startup out of existence if they perceive competition, whether they eventually come up with a product themselves or not.
A strong, focused, agile patent system might offer the little guy protection. The current one seems biased way in favour of the mammoth.
On the post: Why Didn't UK Deal With Ridiculous Copyright Term Lengths?
Re:
Soooooo.... you're saying that the prospect of keeping a corporation you've never heard of in cash 50 years after you die inspires you to write a song? OK.... weird, but at least it has more internal logic than most counter arguments in here.
On the post: Bjork Hopes Pirates Crack Her New Music App, But Perhaps She Should Have Made It More Widely Available
Supporting "piracy"?
I honestly can't see what anyone involved gets out of this, even any "exclusive content" kudos for Apple would seem a bit limited by such a draconian approach to it that's literally begging to be ripped off.
On the post: Could Facebook Lose Its 'Facebook' Trademark After Being Too Aggressive In Trademark Bullying?
Re: masnick is not a lawyer... good.
On the post: Could Facebook Lose Its 'Facebook' Trademark After Being Too Aggressive In Trademark Bullying?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope, like you presumably I think of the well known site Facebook. On the other hand anything else I hear named including the standard English words "face" or "book" at most I will think "yeah so thats where they got the idea for the name from" if it happens to be a concatenation of 2 single syllable words rather than thinking of any association between the 2 that might induce any kind of "confusion".
On the post: Could Facebook Lose Its 'Facebook' Trademark After Being Too Aggressive In Trademark Bullying?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd see it as more pandering to the "If only laws made sense and had relevance to the real world and how humans interact" crowd..... but that's just me.
On the post: Apple Continues To Scream To The World How Competitive Samsung's Tablet Is By Getting It Banned In Australia
Re: Apple vs. Google
Er... I'll admit I've not been following this that closely so no idea what patents are being contested, but how does Apple claim to have any kind of multi-touch patent in general or even specifically for pinch-zoom?
Surely things like Microsoft Surface pre-date iPhone and have the same functionality? Or is the patent system perhaps so broken as to allow that "doing exactly the same thing on a little device instead of a big one" is innovative enough to warrant a patent?
On the post: Connecting With Fans: Paul Simon Invites Fan On Stage To Play Song After She Yells That She Learned Guitar To It
Re: ANTIQUE TECH, been done for at least a century.
On the post: The Confusing Case Of Lovecraft's Copyrights
Re: Re: Oh, dear me!
On the post: Zero-Sum Economics
Re: Re: Not just somethign to flatten your clothes with
On the post: The Confusing Case Of Lovecraft's Copyrights
Oh, dear me!
Next >>