Basically, they get the laws they want which make formerly legal activities criminal.
What's amazing is how they continue to do this and no one is calling them out on how the Constitution was set up to allow these civil liberties.
Oh, of course... "Pirate Mike" is because he "enjoys piracy so much" when it's obvious to everyone that this was never about piracy in the first place.
If he hadn't stolen those mp3's, then WB would not have been forced to corrupt Sweden.
It's Peter Sunde, to steal your musics and doesn't 'fraid of anything!
You have to be blind to not see it (or a pirate apologist) - it's the pirates own fault that major media companies have to corrupt law enforcement and politicians worldwide.
Hide your players, hide your wives, those damn dirty pirates are corrupting officials in the night!
t's typical Mike McThief Masnick double-talk to point the blame anywhere but on himself and his fellow apologists that spearhead the destruction of culture.
And now we have the doom and gloom naysaying... Beautiful! Piracy is ending the era of being able to fileshare. Because those dang dirty pirates have so much power to click two buttons and voila! more content creation and shared enjoyment of songs! That's so rotten and EEEVIL!
Read the article. It's from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics and it's an original piece that shows quite clearly how the entertainment industry has gotten larger. Your cherry picked notion doesn't have weight.
Sadly, much of the creativity out there is in the remix area, so it's hard to say how much really new stuff is out there, and how much is a reworking of someone else's work product.
No... The increase is in the entertainment industry overall. You're picking out of just the music industry. That makes no sense in the broader view of the entertainment industry.
Mike was all up and excited a year or so ago when the number of "released" movies doubled. What he didn't want to talk about was that movie sales (dollars) are essentially flat, and ticket sales are dropping rapidly. Only massive increases in ticket prices have allowed the industry to stay at it's current level of income.
The number of release movies did double, and I remember even further back that the market increased when the movie theaters stopped having six month release windows. Further, the big net losses were movies that sucked.
In regards to the industry, you might want to explain how that has anything to do with your other ramblings. It's entirely offbase when movies such as Iron Sky or Girl with a Dragon Tattoo have come out in other areas and only come into the US for the Grammys at the end of the year.
Where are you seeing this? I am not seeing it. There seems to be a minor upswing in income on the second level (below the mega acts), but again seems to be more related to increased venue ticket prices, and not in any other way.
You seem overly concerned with concerts, ignoring other venues that artists have as I explained. There are some artists that make a living with just a Youtube presence. Some work for magazines. Others have a livestream audience. The pie and the options have gotten far larger than just concert sales.
I am not seeing anything that suggests indie acts are driving live venue income.
This sentence proves it. You're cherry picking data to make a stronger argument for the business methods of the RIAA. Instead of actually understanding that the choices have gotten more diverse for artists in how they make money, you instead use this time to say the only thing that matters is live venue income. That's not how all artists in the music industry make money. Neither is saying all game makers work for Valve or EA and ignoring the indies that make games on the Xbox or PSN. People can make a living on Spotify, Kickstart their own careers, or find ways for people to pay them through direct donations without ever going to a concert venue. So where is your evidence that the old way of doing things is creating more success for more artists?
Mike claims "more content", but really - is there more content, or just more of the same content repeated over and over? It would be like at the time of the invention of the printing press, saying "we now have many more new books" when in fact what you have is many more copies of the same book. Yes, the accompishment of the printing press is impressive, but don't attribute to it what it does not do.
Let us take this apart. First, there are now more performers in the entertainment industry. We have a 43.2% growth rate in indie content from 1998 to 2008. So no, the content is not being repeated. There is new content based on older stuff, I'm sure. Within the statistics are gamers who play old games and post up on Youtube for a living, musicians that are making it work, and indie directors that have no affiliation with the industry. Further, we now have an explosion of writers that are self sustained without the need for book deals. So the argument that we have more repeated content is not adding up to reality.
Mike claims "higher income", but fails to address the issues of significantly higher concert ticket costs, or that more and more of that money in the last decade has been going to a smaller and smaller number of artists on tour.
More indie artists = more artists that take advantage of other methods of payment. You seem focused on the higher ticket costs. This is rather misleading in determining the success of indie artists. For one thing, some artists don't perform onstage. But as I'm showing above, there are now more artists that can make a living without contracts. So there is truth in saying that these artists have higher incomes. They aren't paying exorbitant sums to a record label that doesn't care about them anyway. Most artists aren't actively enslaving themselves for bank loans.
Also, I'm not seeing where a large amount of money is going to smaller numbers of artists on tour. I'm seeing the pie is getting bigger and artists are diversifying.
No explanation of why, with all the "new tools" and "new business models" that people are still knocking themselves out for "Hollywood" entertainment. I don't see a rush on Nina Paley videos, do you?
Nina Paley seems to be doing just fine. So is Jamendo, Dmusic, and all of the artists that haven't become a part of the major record labels.
And seeing as how Kickstarter has funded a number of new business models, it may be time to think outside of just the majors. They're shrinking more and more into irrelevance as the days go by.
This is the same group that had Anonymous hack their phone service. The FBI also used a botnet under a court order. Then we have the ICE using the domain seizures. And do I have to mention how the CIA totally screwed up and gave millions to a guy that was scamming them for years? Worse, the CIA promoted the guy who was handling these contracts.
Sorry, the government doesn't have a leg to stand on here. This isn't needed and it's going to make the problem of cybersecurity worse while allowing more backdoors into technology for government abuse.
I was pretty sure that the problem we actually have is a lack of competition. How would Net Neutrality allow more people to compete on the internet? Even if AT&T is the biggest dog in the yard, shouldn't we be focused on increasing their competition instead of regulating them?
It's like the old Microsoft. You can regulate, but it won't do much good like having Google, Mozilla, and Ubuntu chipping away at what Microsoft had in their monopolistic power over dialup.
Apple was saying DRM was a dumb idea for songs. And it wasn't Apple insisting on shutting down P2P services, moving innovation to Europe. Might want to learn your history.
Please show how those factoids are cherry picked. People already know that you're full of it. Obviously, you haven't read the "Sky is Rising" report, nor any of the other case studies that have been pointed to on this site that actually debunk your shill argument. So by all means... Prove what you think are cherry picked facts.
The Dutch have had a lot of advancements due to no new copyright laws. Was this not the same country that Spotify began and made the labels more money than iTunes?
The Disney devs actually wanted the Lion King to be an homage to Tezuka. They went out of their way to include references to Kimba. It was a nod to what came before.
Enter Michael Eisner, who looked at the devs and said "yeah, I don't care about your homages" and went on to be one of the worst things to happen to Disney in years. Because of Eisner, Disney was known more as a corporation than the development studio powerhouse it was. Eisner is notorious for his micromanaging style at the time and it would eventually lead to top talent leaving the company. It's no surprise that Disney would try to extend copyright given how Eisner always tried to keep control. He really didn't care about the developers. Maybe he's softened a little, but just look the creation of Pixar, which is the direct result of his managing style.
On the post: More Details Emerge On Questionable UK Seizure Of Music Blog
Re: Of course not!
On the post: How Much Is Enough? We've Passed 15 'Anti-Piracy' Laws In The Last 30 Years
Re: The Content Industry is Creating Piracy
What's amazing is how they continue to do this and no one is calling them out on how the Constitution was set up to allow these civil liberties.
Oh, of course... "Pirate Mike" is because he "enjoys piracy so much" when it's obvious to everyone that this was never about piracy in the first place.
On the post: How Much Is Enough? We've Passed 15 'Anti-Piracy' Laws In The Last 30 Years
Re: Re: Sneak in an amendment
On the post: Justice Department Wants $5 Million To Bolster Its Efforts As Hollywood's Private Police Force
Re: Re: Hey, everyone is entitled to policing.
On the post: If People Like You And Your Work They'll Pay; If They Like Your Work, But Don't Like You, They'll Infringe
Re: Re: Wow....It's just like high school
On the post: The Pirate Bay's Peter Sunde Questions Why We Let Dying Industries Dictate Terms Of Democracy
Re:
It's Peter Sunde, to steal your musics and doesn't 'fraid of anything!
You have to be blind to not see it (or a pirate apologist) - it's the pirates own fault that major media companies have to corrupt law enforcement and politicians worldwide.
Hide your players, hide your wives, those damn dirty pirates are corrupting officials in the night!
t's typical Mike McThief Masnick double-talk to point the blame anywhere but on himself and his fellow apologists that spearhead the destruction of culture.
And now we have the doom and gloom naysaying... Beautiful! Piracy is ending the era of being able to fileshare. Because those dang dirty pirates have so much power to click two buttons and voila! more content creation and shared enjoyment of songs! That's so rotten and EEEVIL!
Even if it's only one calorie.
On the post: How Being More Open, Human And Awesome Can Save Anyone Worried About Making Money In Entertainment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Third video
Sadly, much of the creativity out there is in the remix area, so it's hard to say how much really new stuff is out there, and how much is a reworking of someone else's work product.
No... The increase is in the entertainment industry overall. You're picking out of just the music industry. That makes no sense in the broader view of the entertainment industry.
Mike was all up and excited a year or so ago when the number of "released" movies doubled. What he didn't want to talk about was that movie sales (dollars) are essentially flat, and ticket sales are dropping rapidly. Only massive increases in ticket prices have allowed the industry to stay at it's current level of income.
The number of release movies did double, and I remember even further back that the market increased when the movie theaters stopped having six month release windows. Further, the big net losses were movies that sucked.
In regards to the industry, you might want to explain how that has anything to do with your other ramblings. It's entirely offbase when movies such as Iron Sky or Girl with a Dragon Tattoo have come out in other areas and only come into the US for the Grammys at the end of the year.
Where are you seeing this? I am not seeing it. There seems to be a minor upswing in income on the second level (below the mega acts), but again seems to be more related to increased venue ticket prices, and not in any other way.
You seem overly concerned with concerts, ignoring other venues that artists have as I explained. There are some artists that make a living with just a Youtube presence. Some work for magazines. Others have a livestream audience. The pie and the options have gotten far larger than just concert sales.
I am not seeing anything that suggests indie acts are driving live venue income.
This sentence proves it. You're cherry picking data to make a stronger argument for the business methods of the RIAA. Instead of actually understanding that the choices have gotten more diverse for artists in how they make money, you instead use this time to say the only thing that matters is live venue income. That's not how all artists in the music industry make money. Neither is saying all game makers work for Valve or EA and ignoring the indies that make games on the Xbox or PSN. People can make a living on Spotify, Kickstart their own careers, or find ways for people to pay them through direct donations without ever going to a concert venue. So where is your evidence that the old way of doing things is creating more success for more artists?
On the post: How Being More Open, Human And Awesome Can Save Anyone Worried About Making Money In Entertainment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Third video
Since it didn't come up in my post. &(^#@
On the post: How Being More Open, Human And Awesome Can Save Anyone Worried About Making Money In Entertainment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Third video
Let us take this apart. First, there are now more performers in the entertainment industry. We have a 43.2% growth rate in indie content from 1998 to 2008. So no, the content is not being repeated. There is new content based on older stuff, I'm sure. Within the statistics are gamers who play old games and post up on Youtube for a living, musicians that are making it work, and indie directors that have no affiliation with the industry. Further, we now have an explosion of writers that are self sustained without the need for book deals. So the argument that we have more repeated content is not adding up to reality.
Mike claims "higher income", but fails to address the issues of significantly higher concert ticket costs, or that more and more of that money in the last decade has been going to a smaller and smaller number of artists on tour.
More indie artists = more artists that take advantage of other methods of payment. You seem focused on the higher ticket costs. This is rather misleading in determining the success of indie artists. For one thing, some artists don't perform onstage. But as I'm showing above, there are now more artists that can make a living without contracts. So there is truth in saying that these artists have higher incomes. They aren't paying exorbitant sums to a record label that doesn't care about them anyway. Most artists aren't actively enslaving themselves for bank loans.
Also, I'm not seeing where a large amount of money is going to smaller numbers of artists on tour. I'm seeing the pie is getting bigger and artists are diversifying.
No explanation of why, with all the "new tools" and "new business models" that people are still knocking themselves out for "Hollywood" entertainment. I don't see a rush on Nina Paley videos, do you?
Nina Paley seems to be doing just fine. So is Jamendo, Dmusic, and all of the artists that haven't become a part of the major record labels.
And seeing as how Kickstarter has funded a number of new business models, it may be time to think outside of just the majors. They're shrinking more and more into irrelevance as the days go by.
On the post: Cybersecurity Bill Backers Insist This Isn't SOPA... But Is It Needed?
Re: Re: Packet Sniffing by Cable Companies Allowed?
On the post: Cybersecurity Bill Backers Insist This Isn't SOPA... But Is It Needed?
Trust
This is the same group that had Anonymous hack their phone service. The FBI also used a botnet under a court order. Then we have the ICE using the domain seizures. And do I have to mention how the CIA totally screwed up and gave millions to a guy that was scamming them for years? Worse, the CIA promoted the guy who was handling these contracts.
Sorry, the government doesn't have a leg to stand on here. This isn't needed and it's going to make the problem of cybersecurity worse while allowing more backdoors into technology for government abuse.
On the post: Beastie Boy Mike D Forces AT&T To Let Shareholders Vote On Net Neutrality
But isn't this the wrong issue?
It's like the old Microsoft. You can regulate, but it won't do much good like having Google, Mozilla, and Ubuntu chipping away at what Microsoft had in their monopolistic power over dialup.
On the post: Nothing Scales Like Stupidity
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dutch Government: Make European Copyright Exceptions More Flexible
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Being More Open, Human And Awesome Can Save Anyone Worried About Making Money In Entertainment
Re: Re: Third video
Please show how those factoids are cherry picked. People already know that you're full of it. Obviously, you haven't read the "Sky is Rising" report, nor any of the other case studies that have been pointed to on this site that actually debunk your shill argument. So by all means... Prove what you think are cherry picked facts.
On the post: Canadian Politician: You're Either In Favor Of Letting The Gov't Spy On Your Internet Usage... Or You're For Child Pornography
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dutch Government: Make European Copyright Exceptions More Flexible
Re:
On the post: Protecting The Artists? Disney's Marvel Uses Copyright To Crush Already Broke Ghost Rider Creator
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Disney devs actually wanted the Lion King to be an homage to Tezuka. They went out of their way to include references to Kimba. It was a nod to what came before.
Enter Michael Eisner, who looked at the devs and said "yeah, I don't care about your homages" and went on to be one of the worst things to happen to Disney in years. Because of Eisner, Disney was known more as a corporation than the development studio powerhouse it was. Eisner is notorious for his micromanaging style at the time and it would eventually lead to top talent leaving the company. It's no surprise that Disney would try to extend copyright given how Eisner always tried to keep control. He really didn't care about the developers. Maybe he's softened a little, but just look the creation of Pixar, which is the direct result of his managing style.
On the post: TuneCore: RIAA Has Become A Part Of The Problem For Artists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 'The Economist' And 'Financial Times' Already Writing Off ACTA As Dead
Re:
Next >>