"I was writing crappy forgettable pop songs before you were born, punk!"
"So die already! YOUR kind of crappy forgettable pop song is already forgotten, whereas MY kind of crappy forgettable pop song is the wave of the soon to be forgotten future!"
"The thing is... the lizard-people are actually Masons! Or something. Watch Charlie Chaplin's City Lights while listening to a Morissey album and it will all become clear."
I do 'truncated' feeds simply because my articles are so very long. I must admit, though, that this is something that I have never thought of. I mean, we're talking about clicking on a link for chrissakes. Are people really put off by this? Have we become this lazy?
And if truncated feeds are so problematic, I wonder why Twitter is so popular. 'Truncated' describes pretty much every last tweet ever made.
Most of the significant composers of the past 100 years had to teach, or do concerts of other people's music, or do hack work, or find a patron to survive. Direct sales of scores added up to very little for most of them.
And what he said about not being able to find certain scores at any price is quite true. Anton Webern was perhaps the most cited and influential composer of his age, and yet I have never seen more than a handful of his scores for sale in my lifetime.
"Contrary to some commentators here, I can easily imagine a Google that employed tens of thousands of editors to vet material before it appeared online."
So you want Google to go bankrupt, is that it?
"The National Security Agency intercepts hundreds of millions of communications daily, processes them through the Internet, fax machines, bank wire transfer services and telephone lines, and investigates those suspected of terrorism and other anti-state offenses, all with a full-time staff of about 20,000 people."
The NSA is a government agency payed for with our tax money, whether we want it or not. If they lose money, no one really cares except for taxpayers, who are powerless to do anything about it.
And you may not be aware of this but the NSA and affiliated agencies have been known to fail spectacularly when we needed them.
"I just cannot....Bring myself to be angry with Metallica for reasons that will indeed become clear to all upon listening to their version of Breadfan on vinyl at an ear splitting decibel level."
Much as I agree with you on the subject of that particular cover, it can not overcome the disgust that must overwhelm any sane person upon hearing more than a minute of St. Anger.
A shittier, more expensively produced album has yet to see the light of day.
"But the unavoidable truth is that there is so much resource allocated towards the comforts of the label employees who attend that farce that the artists are forced to load in through the shit pipe just for the privilege of getting on stage. So when you do actually perform, you sound like shit, are tired and cut up, pissed off, & your gear is broken. Then all the label folk get to drink, mingle and discuss how shitty you were. There's this idea from the 70's still floating around...like "fuck it! it's rock n roll Maaan" and other twat mouthed notions dreamed up by hippy fart sockets who never stood on stage for a second. They kid them selves that the duck tape and glue performance conditions necessitated by their opulence are actually some sort of legendary prime breeding ground for good shows....and since they can't tell a real artist's performance from a salmonella infected turtle, well then it's all the same innit?
It's like you're a West Indian Native, imported to some European Court circa 1490. You are forced to dance your savage rain dance before the monarch until, laughing, he decides that he and his subjects are going to eat you after you're slow roasted on a spit with some grapes shoved up your ass and a nice Burgundy...
what's the matter crybaby, don't you wanna be a rockstar?"
And your sense of need seems to blind you to some more complex truths.
"Stealing is taking something that does not belong to you."
Well, in the colloquial sense, sure. But in the legal sense, infringing on someone's copyright by making a digital copy is distinct from actually stealing a physical object like a book or CD.
"If I write something, I should have the legal right to control it for as long as possible."
I realize that this is a strong feeling among creative people. I felt this way for a long time myself. But it is a feeling that will only lead to endless frustration.
"You are not entitled to my work. I spent the money to record it, I spent the years honing my craft and sacrificing stable paying jobs so that I can create music. I spent many hours and lots of money trying to market my material."
No one is entitled to your work, this is true. But then, you aren't entitled to compensation just because you have worked hard. It isn't fair, but then, many things in life aren't fair. Thinking about the injustice of it all is another mental habit that will lead to frustration and little else.
"Just because you can take it does not make it right"
No, but it does make it inevitable.
"If you like what I do, and I have decided to charge you for it, then it is your decision to pay for it or not to have it."
Would that this were so. But it no longer is. This is reality.
"This is the way commerce works. You have the freedom and the right to walk away and not purchase what I am selling - you do not have the right to just take it."
Here is the problem with that: people aren't constrained by your sense of right and wrong.
"We musicians are not your slaves - we deserve to be paid and make as much money as anyone else."
Do we?
Pay has nothing to with 'deserve'. Does Derek Jeter deserve to get payed more than a whole high school's worth of teachers? No. But he does.
And it's true that we aren't slaves. And yet, just a short time ago, we had to sign contracts that bordered on indentured servitude, just to get access to the apparatus of making and distributing music. We no longer have to. This is a pretty big counterweight to the widespread 'stealing' that so annoys you that many of us musicians forget.
"Again, can anyone offer a logical justification for stealing IP? Anyone?
I didn't think so..."
No one here spends much time trying to 'justify' anything.
Here's the deal: there is good reason to believe that, however annoying file sharing might be to you, it is never going to stop. Indignation won't work, nor will putting people in jail. Now you might think this is untrue, but there sure is a lot of evidence that points the other way that you might want to consider.
In any case, what Mike is trying to do is not justify filesharing, but rather to help 'content creators' (how I loath that term) cope with these changes, and turn them to their advantage.
"This isn't about exerting American influence, its about asserting industry influence. Once you have an American style industrial presence in every strategically important country in the world, then govt. becomes a backseat player to business. And once that happens, it's global fascism realized."
"Sure there are. Who said otherwise? But that's not what we're talking about."
No one said otherwise. I was simply asking you to extend intellectual courtesy to the people that you disagree with.
People accuse you of 'justifying freeloaders' all of the time. I am sure that you think these accusations are bullshit. I certainly do. Your positions are usually much too nuanced to be characterized with a simplistic slogan. So are the positions of some of the people you disagree with.
"We're talking about people who insist that what many people consider to be art "can't" be art, because they don't like it."
But has anyone actually said that? Usually people have a reason for saying that something isn't art. Often these are bad reasons: 'it corrupts youth', 'it's in poor taste', 'it gives you herpes', and so on. But sometimes critics give more thoughtful reasons than these. I am certain, for example, that Adorno would have hated remixing. But reading his reasons for hating it would probably be quite interesting and informative, even if they were ultimately found to be mistaken.
"And, yes, I find that attitude to be ignorant. Art is what people feel is art."
Which people? All of them? What if they disagree with each other? Are they all right?
"There will always be those who don't recognize how this is, in fact, collaboration and does create new and unique pieces of artwork and culture -- but they're the same sorts of people who have decried every new artform from the Waltz"
You know, this really does kind of bother me, the way you take everyone who disagrees with any artistic development and throw them all in the same box.
Not everyone who sees artistic decline is an ignorant schoolmarm with a social agenda. Some of them are like that, certainly. But then, there are some people who really do just like to fill up their hard drives with infringing material and never buy anything.
If it's unfair to characterize every techdirt reader as a freetard, and I think it is, it is equally unfair to characterize every cultural critic who sees decline as a schoolmarm.
Say what you will about, say, Spengler, he certainly wasn't a schoolmarm.
"even as plenty of upstarts have figured out how to make new business models work"
"Step 1, don't pay for content, don't pay for use, basically, don't pay for anything.
Damn, I could have plenty of good business models if I didn't have to pay for the products I resold."
What you fail to understand is that even if there are no new business models, even if the industry is dying and nothing is going to take it's place forever, it STILL isn't kosher for a private industry to be able to buy influence from public officials like this.
I know it happens all of the time, and that the RIAA is far from being the biggest leach on the public coffer (that would be ADM), but it still makes me sick.
"I have another opinion to add in support of Warner. The audio quality of all the streaming services is very poor and by supporting them the labels are downgrading their product."
The same argument could be made against radio.
Most people don't care that much about sound quality. If they did, iTunes wouldn't be the largest music retailer in the world.
"You just complain about their business strategy because they have a product that you want, but you aren't willing to pay for what they are asking."
Who is this addressed to?
As a general rule, the reasonable people here are simply trying to point out that these companies are doing things that are losing them money. It's not 'complaining', it's making an observation.
"Because with the exception of a very small but vocal group outside the mainstream who post over and over, (and over and over) the vast majority the world over not only accepts "price for value" as a basis of fair commerce, but warmly embraces the long held notion of product value and viability for sale, for SALE, not infringement, no matter what the format. "Product is product" trumps all in the hearts and minds of humans."
How do you know this?
Seriously, I am curious, how?
It doesn't have to be a link. I would be more than happy to buy a book ( I buy lots of books) if it actually contained proof of what 'the vast majority' thinks on these matters.
I must admit that I am skeptical of the whole idea of an individual knowing what 'the vast majority' thinks about ANYTHING. But I am always willing to read a new study with an innovative methodology.
"In the "on demand" universe, that connection is lost (no pun intended), which in many ways lowers the value of the entertainment to all. It's too bad that in the headlong rush of technology, we lose what often made things special to start with."
Sort of like a guy who just spouts out the first thing that comes into his mind on a message board rather than taking the time to write something thoughtful that is worth reading?
I would say that people waiting to see the first episode are doing so for many different reasons. Some might just want to make sure that everything is right, that no scenes are missing or altered. Some might care about sound or video quality (although I doubt there are many of them). Some might just have it in their head that the premiere is tonight at 8 o'clock or whenever and have made plans accordingly.
"Lots of musicians could put together this type of model and fail for a very good reason: they're just not that good."
While I agree with 95% of what you have written here, and while I also think that Bruno is obtuse at best, now is as good a time as any to point out a common mistake that I see here:
It is quite possible to be a brilliant musician and never make a living off of your music.
This is because:
1. People like really simple repetitive music. They just do. It's how people are.
2. Musicians, especially older musicians, often tire of making simple repetitive music. This is why histories of twentieth century music are filled with names that very few people have heard: names like Ligeti and Boulez and Webern and Varese and Messiaen and Barraque and Nono and Cowell (Henry, that is) and Nancarrow.
None of these musicians made a living off of their music, because the music buying public doesn't really care about visionary musical genius.
I realize this has nothing to do with business models, and don't really expect anyone to care about any of this, but I have seen so many people write as if the statement "talent=popularity" is an obvious truth that I thought this little nuance worth mentioning.
On the post: Eddy Grant Accuses Gorillaz Of Copying After Gorillaz Manager Threatens People For Copying...
"No, it's MY crappy forgettable pop song!"
"I was writing crappy forgettable pop songs before you were born, punk!"
"So die already! YOUR kind of crappy forgettable pop song is already forgotten, whereas MY kind of crappy forgettable pop song is the wave of the soon to be forgotten future!"
And so on, and on.....
On the post: Jaron Lanier Says That Musicians Using Free To Succeed Are Lying
No, no, no..... not Morissey, Morrison.
I mean, he is the lizard king, after all.
On the post: Truncated RSS Is A Bad Business Decision
And if truncated feeds are so problematic, I wonder why Twitter is so popular. 'Truncated' describes pretty much every last tweet ever made.
On the post: Classical Music Composers Debating The Value Of Free Too
And what he said about not being able to find certain scores at any price is quite true. Anton Webern was perhaps the most cited and influential composer of his age, and yet I have never seen more than a handful of his scores for sale in my lifetime.
On the post: Columnist Claims Italy's Google Verdict Makes Sense
So you want Google to go bankrupt, is that it?
"The National Security Agency intercepts hundreds of millions of communications daily, processes them through the Internet, fax machines, bank wire transfer services and telephone lines, and investigates those suspected of terrorism and other anti-state offenses, all with a full-time staff of about 20,000 people."
The NSA is a government agency payed for with our tax money, whether we want it or not. If they lose money, no one really cares except for taxpayers, who are powerless to do anything about it.
And you may not be aware of this but the NSA and affiliated agencies have been known to fail spectacularly when we needed them.
On the post: Metallica Sued Napster For This?
http://prettyboring.com/files/images/james%20hetfield%20metallica%20so%20sold%20out.jpg
On the post: Metallica Sued Napster For This?
Much as I agree with you on the subject of that particular cover, it can not overcome the disgust that must overwhelm any sane person upon hearing more than a minute of St. Anger.
A shittier, more expensively produced album has yet to see the light of day.
On the post: RIAA CEO Tries To Connect China Google Hack With Google's Attitude Towards Copyright
It's like you're a West Indian Native, imported to some European Court circa 1490. You are forced to dance your savage rain dance before the monarch until, laughing, he decides that he and his subjects are going to eat you after you're slow roasted on a spit with some grapes shoved up your ass and a nice Burgundy...
what's the matter crybaby, don't you wanna be a rockstar?"
That was fucking hilarious.
And all too true. I blame CMJ.
On the post: Winning Essay In High School Ethics Writing Competition Argues That File Sharing Isn't Wrong
And your sense of need seems to blind you to some more complex truths.
"Stealing is taking something that does not belong to you."
Well, in the colloquial sense, sure. But in the legal sense, infringing on someone's copyright by making a digital copy is distinct from actually stealing a physical object like a book or CD.
"If I write something, I should have the legal right to control it for as long as possible."
I realize that this is a strong feeling among creative people. I felt this way for a long time myself. But it is a feeling that will only lead to endless frustration.
"You are not entitled to my work. I spent the money to record it, I spent the years honing my craft and sacrificing stable paying jobs so that I can create music. I spent many hours and lots of money trying to market my material."
No one is entitled to your work, this is true. But then, you aren't entitled to compensation just because you have worked hard. It isn't fair, but then, many things in life aren't fair. Thinking about the injustice of it all is another mental habit that will lead to frustration and little else.
"Just because you can take it does not make it right"
No, but it does make it inevitable.
"If you like what I do, and I have decided to charge you for it, then it is your decision to pay for it or not to have it."
Would that this were so. But it no longer is. This is reality.
"This is the way commerce works. You have the freedom and the right to walk away and not purchase what I am selling - you do not have the right to just take it."
Here is the problem with that: people aren't constrained by your sense of right and wrong.
"We musicians are not your slaves - we deserve to be paid and make as much money as anyone else."
Do we?
Pay has nothing to with 'deserve'. Does Derek Jeter deserve to get payed more than a whole high school's worth of teachers? No. But he does.
And it's true that we aren't slaves. And yet, just a short time ago, we had to sign contracts that bordered on indentured servitude, just to get access to the apparatus of making and distributing music. We no longer have to. This is a pretty big counterweight to the widespread 'stealing' that so annoys you that many of us musicians forget.
"Again, can anyone offer a logical justification for stealing IP? Anyone?
I didn't think so..."
No one here spends much time trying to 'justify' anything.
Here's the deal: there is good reason to believe that, however annoying file sharing might be to you, it is never going to stop. Indignation won't work, nor will putting people in jail. Now you might think this is untrue, but there sure is a lot of evidence that points the other way that you might want to consider.
In any case, what Mike is trying to do is not justify filesharing, but rather to help 'content creators' (how I loath that term) cope with these changes, and turn them to their advantage.
On the post: Time To Change (Or Ditch) The USTR Special 301 Process That Pressures Other Countries To Adapt US IP Laws
Do you really believe this?
Seriously, do you?
On the post: Teen Remixes The Works Of Others Into Best Selling Novel... And Critics Love It
No one said otherwise. I was simply asking you to extend intellectual courtesy to the people that you disagree with.
People accuse you of 'justifying freeloaders' all of the time. I am sure that you think these accusations are bullshit. I certainly do. Your positions are usually much too nuanced to be characterized with a simplistic slogan. So are the positions of some of the people you disagree with.
"We're talking about people who insist that what many people consider to be art "can't" be art, because they don't like it."
But has anyone actually said that? Usually people have a reason for saying that something isn't art. Often these are bad reasons: 'it corrupts youth', 'it's in poor taste', 'it gives you herpes', and so on. But sometimes critics give more thoughtful reasons than these. I am certain, for example, that Adorno would have hated remixing. But reading his reasons for hating it would probably be quite interesting and informative, even if they were ultimately found to be mistaken.
"And, yes, I find that attitude to be ignorant. Art is what people feel is art."
Which people? All of them? What if they disagree with each other? Are they all right?
On the post: Teen Remixes The Works Of Others Into Best Selling Novel... And Critics Love It
You know, this really does kind of bother me, the way you take everyone who disagrees with any artistic development and throw them all in the same box.
Not everyone who sees artistic decline is an ignorant schoolmarm with a social agenda. Some of them are like that, certainly. But then, there are some people who really do just like to fill up their hard drives with infringing material and never buy anything.
If it's unfair to characterize every techdirt reader as a freetard, and I think it is, it is equally unfair to characterize every cultural critic who sees decline as a schoolmarm.
Say what you will about, say, Spengler, he certainly wasn't a schoolmarm.
On the post: Entertainment Industry Get Their Own 'Piracy Police' In The Justice Department
"Step 1, don't pay for content, don't pay for use, basically, don't pay for anything.
Damn, I could have plenty of good business models if I didn't have to pay for the products I resold."
What you fail to understand is that even if there are no new business models, even if the industry is dying and nothing is going to take it's place forever, it STILL isn't kosher for a private industry to be able to buy influence from public officials like this.
I know it happens all of the time, and that the RIAA is far from being the biggest leach on the public coffer (that would be ADM), but it still makes me sick.
On the post: Warner Music Shoots Self In Head; Says No More Free Streaming
The same argument could be made against radio.
Most people don't care that much about sound quality. If they did, iTunes wouldn't be the largest music retailer in the world.
On the post: Warner Music Shoots Self In Head; Says No More Free Streaming
Who is this addressed to?
As a general rule, the reasonable people here are simply trying to point out that these companies are doing things that are losing them money. It's not 'complaining', it's making an observation.
On the post: Let's Face Facts: ACTA Is Called An 'Executive Agreement' To Change The Law With Less Hassle Than A Treaty
It's like our so called public servants aren't even trying to pretend that they serve the public interest anymore.
On the post: Engadget Latest To Try Comment Cooling Off Period; I Can't Figure Out Why
Oh, we don't have to know his backstory to know that.
On the post: USTR: A Lot Of Misperception Over ACTA, But We Won't Clear It Up Or Anything
How do you know this?
Seriously, I am curious, how?
It doesn't have to be a link. I would be more than happy to buy a book ( I buy lots of books) if it actually contained proof of what 'the vast majority' thinks on these matters.
I must admit that I am skeptical of the whole idea of an individual knowing what 'the vast majority' thinks about ANYTHING. But I am always willing to read a new study with an innovative methodology.
So please, tell me, how do you know this?
On the post: Reporter, TV Execs (Maybe?) Confused Over Lost Fans Choosing Not To Watch Leaked Episode
Sort of like a guy who just spouts out the first thing that comes into his mind on a message board rather than taking the time to write something thoughtful that is worth reading?
I would say that people waiting to see the first episode are doing so for many different reasons. Some might just want to make sure that everything is right, that no scenes are missing or altered. Some might care about sound or video quality (although I doubt there are many of them). Some might just have it in their head that the premiere is tonight at 8 o'clock or whenever and have made plans accordingly.
On the post: Billboard Gets Snarky; Not A Believer In CwF + RtB
While I agree with 95% of what you have written here, and while I also think that Bruno is obtuse at best, now is as good a time as any to point out a common mistake that I see here:
It is quite possible to be a brilliant musician and never make a living off of your music.
This is because:
1. People like really simple repetitive music. They just do. It's how people are.
2. Musicians, especially older musicians, often tire of making simple repetitive music. This is why histories of twentieth century music are filled with names that very few people have heard: names like Ligeti and Boulez and Webern and Varese and Messiaen and Barraque and Nono and Cowell (Henry, that is) and Nancarrow.
None of these musicians made a living off of their music, because the music buying public doesn't really care about visionary musical genius.
I realize this has nothing to do with business models, and don't really expect anyone to care about any of this, but I have seen so many people write as if the statement "talent=popularity" is an obvious truth that I thought this little nuance worth mentioning.
Next >>