Re: No wonder I basically hate everything at this point:
In the not-too-distant past, signing was really the only viable way to make music happen. I don't know if that's necessarily true for this band, but I'm pretty sure I heard about OkGo quite a while before online indepentent music really took off. At the very least, it's possible they weren't aware of an alternative to signing. Unless you know otherwise, cut them a break.
That might work if they did actual-metered services, like utilities do -- you pay exactly by the kw/h. That's not what's been proposed, though: you buy a service that has a cap. Every month you pay a fee, just like you do now, but if you go over the cap, you get billed extra. If you're under the cap... same flat fee, regardless of what you use.
This is an attempt to get more "growth". People aren't looking to get faster Internet any more because speed is no longer an issue; many/most plans currently offer speeds that are more than fast enough for casual users. They want to charge people extra for consuming more data, both so they can squeeze extra charges out of people, and also to encourage people to buy-up to the next tier: it'll probably be cheaper by the month to raise your cap than to go over by even a little bit.
They don't do this because it couldn't end well for them. At best, they would just lose the court case, but at worst it could set a legal prescedent that guys like The Pirate Bay could use to get around them. It's unlikely that Google would cave to the RIAA, and they have enough legal guns of their own that it would be a more-fair fight.
The point is, until you figure that out, shouldn't Free Speach trump copyright? As Mike points out, every other restriction on Free Speach has requirements that much be fulfilled before speach can be stifled.
If this album sells less than the last album, should file sharers pick up the difference?
That seems way beyond reasonable. Maybe the album just wasn't as good. You can't hold consumers responsible if you produce something of low quality, right?
What happens if a deal is lost to put the music in a movie or use it in a commercial because of the song being too widely available for free? Who should pay for that?
It sounds like you're asking "if a liscencing deal doesn't happen, who pays for it?" If it didn't happen, then there's nothing to pay for, right? You can't fine people because your product wasn't purchaced.
Nevermind that you're neglecting the possibility of net-positive effects of file sharing, as noted by others above. If the album sells significantly better than the last, are you going to give all those file-sharers a cut of the difference?
An actor is better off turning down a part in a bad movie, for example, because they have a reputation built on the parts they play and the movies they're in. If they're in a bad m,ovie, it hurts their reputation.
Similarly, an actor who gets more awards builds a better reputation and becomes more desirable. Unless THE ONLY JOB they can get is from Sony, they're better off taking a part in a film that just might get an award nomination.
Essentially, if this continues, the only ones who will work on Sony movies will be the ones who HAVE to, and desperate actors probably aren't good actors... and bad actors don't make successful movies.
Sony makes movies, movies require actors, actors like recognition, and one of the best sorts of recognition is awards like this. if people think this Moon actor has a shot at an award and Sony won't support their own movie people are going to get the message: work for Sony and you'll waste your time and lose any chance of an award for your efforts.
Actors in Sony movies will get fewer awards, so the good talent will stop working with Sony and Sony will be unable to make good movies.
Mike's disappointment was that CNN didn't challenge anything. The present the fact that Rowling hasn't offered her book digitally, but they failed to point out (as Mike notes) that this is an empty and futile gesture. Not-offering her books online hasn't stopped piracy, as Rowling would wish and CNN implies, but instead people who want a digital copy of Rowling's work are forced to not-pay her. Rowling has ensured that there is no way to obtain a digital HP book EXCEPT through piracy -- thus encouraging that which she fears.
The "problem" with the statement on Rowling isn't that it's simply false, but rather that it implies a falsehood (namely, that not-offering a digital copy has stopped piracy).
"a total of over $270,000,000. That's a lot of freakin' money for a 'dying' industry."
But, you're of course neglecting the other financial acrobatics involved. like how they claim each of these movies had a multi-million dollar cost to produce in the first place, etc. etc.
Ironically this doesn't stop filesharing of already popular works (you can get them from your mates) but harms the ability of lesser known acts to spread the word.
That's not ironic. That benefits the Labels. It used to be that they were the Gatekeepers, and to "make it" you had to be chosen by them and play their game. Anything that makes it harder to self-promote makes the Labels stronger.
I second this. Having a PR guy tweet about your next concert date isn't going to be as compelling as the drummer talking about how he likes his eggs. It's not just about promoting yourself, it's about letting your fans get to know you.
they have found a way to shut pirates out from the "best stuff"
If and when that happens, I'll join your lament. No DLC I've seen so far has been terribly compelling, in any game, so I still think they're selling a full game and trying to recoup some kind of money out of pirates.
The trick is making a compelling game so people play it in the first place, and then make compelling DLC, so that people feel OK coughing up more money. In the end, "accepting" pirates just makes business sense (adding to the market for DLC, regardless of if you "lost" a game sale).
DLC isn't the same as a paywall, mostly because of who the intended "end-consumer" is. In video games, the end-consumer is the player; games are made for the benefit of the player and sold directly to him.
In news, which is where we discuss paywalls, the end-consumer is actually the advertisers; they pay the newspaper for spots on the page, and those spots are made valuable because of the readers. More readers meand more value. When you start charging readers for the "priviledge" of looking at adds, they're going to go elsewhere -- particularly when there are so many free sourses of news (who make money on ads).
If game publishers find a way of selling players' attention the way newspapers sell readers' attention then maybe comparing DLC to a paywall will make sense, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
I agree with you that there's nothing wrong with a little corporal punishment, to a reasonable extent. But that doesn't mean "alternative punishments" are all BS. Time outs, groundings, taking away phone- or TV- or car-priviledges... These are long-standing and effective punishments that even someone afraid of the child-abuse card can use, that's all I'm saying.
You're both missing the point. The Internet and Facebook are not the problem here. The problem is boys getting into fights in the real world, and that's something parents can and should be actively discouraging and punishing. If you feel you're no longer "allowed" to spank your kids there are other alternative punishments that can get the message through that such behavior is unacceptible and won't be tolerated. Internet filters won't keep kids from hitting each other, and that parenting is difficult and time consuming is no excuse to shirk your responsibility.
There's no direct money to be made in embedded videos.
As I recall, commercials are still present in embedded Hulu shows, and those streams are still counted because the embedding is still hosted by Hulu. TV lived for decades on commercials, why is it suddenly different because people use their computers for the same purpose?
While I agree with you that openness is the ideal to aim at, I don't think "openness" necessarily means "lack of regrets." If Prejean really does feel like her nude shots are shameful, there's arguably nothing wrong with that. openness could be he saying, "what of it," as you propose, but it can just as easily mean her saying, "I made some bad choices and learned to move on." I don't think either one is more right than the other, as long as it's honest.
There are plenty of successful and well-adjusted people who didn't HAVE a plan in highschool or college, and EVERYONE has done things at one time either because they didn't think about the consequences or because they couldn't foresee the consequences. Be careful with your holier-than-thou, people-should-be-perfect attitude. It's not realistic and it doesn't give people the freedom to make mistakes and grow from them. As I was once told, "good judgement comes from experience, and experience... that comes from bad judgement."
On the post: Sometimes Protecting Free Speech Means Protecting Speech You Don't Like
Re: A lot of assumptions here
On the post: EMI/Capitol Records Works Hard To Make Ok Go's Viral Video Less Viral
Re: No wonder I basically hate everything at this point:
On the post: As ISPs Look To Charge Per Byte... How Accurate Are Their Meters?
Re: Re: Ridiculous
This is an attempt to get more "growth". People aren't looking to get faster Internet any more because speed is no longer an issue; many/most plans currently offer speeds that are more than fast enough for casual users. They want to charge people extra for consuming more data, both so they can squeeze extra charges out of people, and also to encourage people to buy-up to the next tier: it'll probably be cheaper by the month to raise your cap than to go over by even a little bit.
On the post: Record Labels Demanding Cash From Pirate Bay Founders
Re: hmmm
On the post: Lord Lucas Proposes That Copyright Holders Detail Actual Damages From Infringement Under Mandelson Bill
Re:
The point is, until you figure that out, shouldn't Free Speach trump copyright? As Mike points out, every other restriction on Free Speach has requirements that much be fulfilled before speach can be stifled.
If this album sells less than the last album, should file sharers pick up the difference?
That seems way beyond reasonable. Maybe the album just wasn't as good. You can't hold consumers responsible if you produce something of low quality, right?
What happens if a deal is lost to put the music in a movie or use it in a commercial because of the song being too widely available for free? Who should pay for that?
It sounds like you're asking "if a liscencing deal doesn't happen, who pays for it?" If it didn't happen, then there's nothing to pay for, right? You can't fine people because your product wasn't purchaced.
Nevermind that you're neglecting the possibility of net-positive effects of file sharing, as noted by others above. If the album sells significantly better than the last, are you going to give all those file-sharers a cut of the difference?
On the post: Philip K. Dick Estate Sends Google Cease And Desist Over Nexus One Name
Re: Re: Re: May not be a money grab
On the post: Sony Won't Support Its Own Movie For An Oscar Over Misplaced Piracy Fears
Re: Re:
An actor is better off turning down a part in a bad movie, for example, because they have a reputation built on the parts they play and the movies they're in. If they're in a bad m,ovie, it hurts their reputation.
Similarly, an actor who gets more awards builds a better reputation and becomes more desirable. Unless THE ONLY JOB they can get is from Sony, they're better off taking a part in a film that just might get an award nomination.
Essentially, if this continues, the only ones who will work on Sony movies will be the ones who HAVE to, and desperate actors probably aren't good actors... and bad actors don't make successful movies.
On the post: Sony Won't Support Its Own Movie For An Oscar Over Misplaced Piracy Fears
Re:
Sony makes movies, movies require actors, actors like recognition, and one of the best sorts of recognition is awards like this. if people think this Moon actor has a shot at an award and Sony won't support their own movie people are going to get the message: work for Sony and you'll waste your time and lose any chance of an award for your efforts.
Actors in Sony movies will get fewer awards, so the good talent will stop working with Sony and Sony will be unable to make good movies.
On the post: CNN's Take On 'Book Piracy'
Re:
The "problem" with the statement on Rowling isn't that it's simply false, but rather that it implies a falsehood (namely, that not-offering a digital copy has stopped piracy).
On the post: MPAA Gives 'It's Complicated' An R Rating Because It Shows Pot Might Make You Giggle
Re: And even another record...
But, you're of course neglecting the other financial acrobatics involved. like how they claim each of these movies had a multi-million dollar cost to produce in the first place, etc. etc.
On the post: Why The Record Labels Are Still Confused: The Difference Between Transformative And Incremental Change
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nobody obeys the law
That's not ironic. That benefits the Labels. It used to be that they were the Gatekeepers, and to "make it" you had to be chosen by them and play their game. Anything that makes it harder to self-promote makes the Labels stronger.
On the post: Getting Past The 'But Artists Should Just Be Artists' Myth
Re: Re:
On the post: EA CEO Continues To Appeal To Pirates, Rather Than Attack Them
Re: Re:
If and when that happens, I'll join your lament. No DLC I've seen so far has been terribly compelling, in any game, so I still think they're selling a full game and trying to recoup some kind of money out of pirates.
The trick is making a compelling game so people play it in the first place, and then make compelling DLC, so that people feel OK coughing up more money. In the end, "accepting" pirates just makes business sense (adding to the market for DLC, regardless of if you "lost" a game sale).
On the post: EA CEO Continues To Appeal To Pirates, Rather Than Attack Them
Re:
In news, which is where we discuss paywalls, the end-consumer is actually the advertisers; they pay the newspaper for spots on the page, and those spots are made valuable because of the readers. More readers meand more value. When you start charging readers for the "priviledge" of looking at adds, they're going to go elsewhere -- particularly when there are so many free sourses of news (who make money on ads).
If game publishers find a way of selling players' attention the way newspapers sell readers' attention then maybe comparing DLC to a paywall will make sense, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
On the post: Don't Blame Facebook For Some Kids Beating Up Another Student
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Where are the parents"
On the post: Don't Blame Facebook For Some Kids Beating Up Another Student
Re: Re: "Where are the parents"
On the post: Hulu Telling Sites To Stop Embedding So Much
Re: Comparison to YouTube
As I recall, commercials are still present in embedded Hulu shows, and those streams are still counted because the embedding is still hosted by Hulu. TV lived for decades on commercials, why is it suddenly different because people use their computers for the same purpose?
On the post: As Expected, Social Networking Generation Running For Office Face Their Permanent Record Online
Re: Re: Re: I'm glad...
On the post: As Expected, Social Networking Generation Running For Office Face Their Permanent Record Online
Re:
You imply that cheating isn't an "act of being dishonest." Most people would disagree with you there, I think.
On the post: As Expected, Social Networking Generation Running For Office Face Their Permanent Record Online
Re: Re: This could be a problem for everyone...
Next >>