I remind you that if you want people to understand your points, you need to provide more info...burden is always on the author to provide context so they are properly understood. You respond with the prejorative and "insulting" (to use your oft used term) "It's impossible to educate people who choose to be ignorant." Huh? I'm asking to be educated...provide me information so I can see if your argument - belief in this case - holds water.
I asked you to please define what "huge" as it relates to this artist. You respond "I'm not your personal economics instructor." Believe me, though I read a lot of what you write, I don't want you to be my economics instructor (and you're not the only one who spent time at Cornell, bub). Strangely, I didn't ask about economics, I asked you to provide a modicum of data to support your "huge" claim surrounding this artist, an artist in which you appear to have some sort of interest. More emotion, frustration with your readers and, yes, misdirection.
Then you proceed into a tirade that lays out your various, broadly cast frustrations with your own readership. You are saying that you "showed how it worked" at various levels and such. Blah, blah. You cite a limited numbers of examples and wonder why people don't see it as definitive, broad-based, irrefutable proof of your contentions. There are tens of millions of businesses and probably tens of thousands of business models in the world...you find a few dozen, perhaps more, and then stamp your feet that everyone is "ignorant" or a "fool" for not seeing I your way. Evidence of either frustration or desperation...I can't tell which anymore. But you certainly seem to be getting a bit too cool for your own room.
And finally your HILARIOUS comment that 'What I find hilarious is the way people shift their responses to me." Mike, hello? I addressed your points, one of which was a thinly veiled attempt to reframe a poster's question in response (the kids thing). A cheap literary trick. And then you respond to me with points and insults all over the map, redirecting and shifting to the max. Ironic at best, hypocritical at worst. You're making it difficult to want to take the time to read more of your stuff. Nobody's scolding you (a very interesting, personal and emotional word to chose). But I am questioning you...that's okay, isn't it? After all, this is an "opinion site."
"Have you seen the number of folks who show up at her events when she suddenly twitters that she'll be appearing somewhere? You don't get that turnout without a huge following."
No, no I haven't. I have no idea who she as. As the Pontificator-in-Residence, it's really kinda your job to educate the uninitiated. So, how many people show up when she tweets? Perhaps she's got a small but dedicated following....a high response rate on small numbers, rather than a typical low rate on big numbers. I have no idea as you've presented no information other than your subjective assessment that it's "huge." And since you seem to have some sort of interest in this artist, since she's a participant in your experiment/fund raiser, I take your assessment with a grain of salt.
"No, don't make up stuff. It doesn't make you look smart. I didn't dismiss radio. It is still a big player, but it's been growing smaller, especially among demographics that matter. You can pretend otherwise, but you'd be a fool."
There's your emotional reaction again, Mike. In response to the previous poster's comment that "it pays to get the local marketing that gets the bands interviewed on radio," you said, "as if kids still listen to the radio." and as for MTV and Rolling Stone (the magazine world), you said: "As if kids still pay attention to either. How old are you? This is no longer the 80s." So you introduced the demographic construct in order to dismiss that radio, music television and magazines are important factors in the dissemination of music. Looks as if you decided to frame the argument using the demographics in order to flimsily support your contention that radio, TV and print are non-factors. The CORRECTION you included in your response to me is accurate ("It is still a big player, but it's been growing smaller, especially among demographics that matter.") but that is definitely not the impression you clearly left in your prior post. And I can tell you that the "demographics that matter" in the magazine world, don't stop at 18 or 25, as an example. To quote you, you can pretend otherwise, but you'd be a "fool."
On the IS versus SHOULD, okay, that's your subjective point of view, fine. The fact is that the more economically vested in your view of "IS" you become, the more subjective and insistent you become. Look at your own "experiment" which, while entertaining, basically appears to be simple fund raising for you and your buddies, not to mention the books, speeches, etc. None of which I begrudge you...enjoy, make what you can while you can. You can say and even really believe that it's because that's where you genuinely see the market going. I see you working hard to make it GO there in your microcosmal world, which attaches more subjectivity and emotionality to it as you take it further and further. Your are not a dispassionate, academic observer, but someone with increasingly vested interests in seeing the items you predict (okay "observe") come to fruition. Nothing wrong with that, but it colors your verbiage and strains objectivity.
Another anecdotal argument from TechDirt's masters. Mike, define "HUGE" please. I think this is yet another example where scale matters and you chose to ignore it.
Also interesting to see you dismissing radio, almost as though it doesn't exist, similar to the way you sometimes seem to dismiss the traditional music industry. These are still multi-billion dollar industries. Surely, it's more difficult for them to eek out the margin they prefer and their shares are declining, but they are still massive factors in music adoption and distribution. Dismissing radio, videos and such out of hand really undercuts your arguments. Inconvenient truths they are, I suppose.
I know that a lot of your musings on TechDirt are about what you think the future should be. But it's also important to accurately and completely reflect what the state of the present market is right now.
One of the most (apparently) honest and realistic posts I've read here in a long time. This is a big part of the problem with both the perception and reality surrounding illegal downloading. A great example of the "Free Stuffer" mindset.
@PaulT, your examples are good for you, I agree. And the region issue on DVD is a real problem, I also agree.
But the point you made was about the broader market. Are you contending that MOST of the illegal downloads being done globally (or in the US or Europe) are for content which is not now or ever available legally?
I'd also note that a number of your examples are more about timing and your personal convenience than the willful, indefinite withholding of product from a market for no business reason. Games are often released in Japan earlier than in the US...so do U.S.-based gamers have a right to download those games because they don't want to wait a week or a month? What is the "convenience cutoff" which justifies this illegal activity - one week, one month, one year? Illegally downloading content because you don't want to wait a week or a month is a very different scenario (morally and from a business market perspective) than downloading something which is not at all available and never will be. Impatience as an excuse for illegal activity is not a great foundation, IMHO.
@PaulT - you write "When this is the most common situation (it's not, especially outside of the US)" intimating - I think - that MOST of the content downloaded illegally is not otherwise available for purchase. How do you know this? It is certainly counter-intuitive to my experience both in the US and Europe. But my mind is open to be educated.
Mike, I agree with you that good investigative reporting can come from sources and efforts outside the mainstream media. And that goodness for that since the MSM is so loaded, bloated and biased (in various directions, but mostly left). But I don't get your last sentence: that "newspaper investigative reporting is somehow "pure" once again seems to be in question..." I don't think I've seen anyone here contend that newspaper investigative journalism is "pure." Maybe I'm just not sure what you mean by "pure." The fact is that The National Enquirer and TMZ - which nobody in their right mind believes is pure (which I interpret as being free from gray-line practices including paying for details, invading privacy) - offer some of the best deep dives of celebs and politicians. Now, I don't think for a second either of those organizations have the depth or expertise to break a Watergate or Pentagon papers, but they clearly can handle the light stuff.
Just clarifying per the above AC comment, that the Ford Escape does NOT license Toyota technology, so the original point of the post is even weaker than originally thought.
Agreed, but actually early Toyota and Honda hybrid work leveraged heavily work done by GM and - I seem to recall - Mercedes, before there was a whole lot of interest in the technology. So, I agree with your point, but just because Honda and Toyota was first to market does not mean they had a monopoly on innovation.
Mike, I agree with your general premise that patent thickets can create some problems and stifle some aspects of some innovation in certain markets, but this is a really bad example. Sure, Toyota has a ton of patents in hybrid technology. So do most car companies. Your example touches on Ford's licensing of Toyota technology for the Escape Hybrid. True. But Ford then went on to develop it's own technology - now in use on the Fusion/Milan Hybrid - which actually blows the doors off of the Toyota technology in many ways. It is actually the Ford Fusion Hybrid which holds the record for the most patents on a given car model. See: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/06/03/ford-fusion-hybrid-the-most-patented-car-in-history/
This is a great example of where patents - and a desire to avoid paying a competitor to license their system - actually spurred innovation. Now Ford has a product which many analysts believe represents a solid evolution and restatement of hybrid technology, on a platform that is reviewing extremely well (and with better crash tests, mileage and expected quality!) than the present Camry hybrid. Boy those Toyota patents sure stifled innovation. Wait...what???
Look, I agree in general that the hyper-patenting trend of slapping one (or attempting to) on every little thing, not to protected your investment, but largely for the purposes heading off competitors can negatively impact innovation in some cases, even though it is surely a legal practice. But this is a really poor example that is readily refuted.
Mike, thank you. I can understand your frustration, but I also think what you are observing is pretty predictable, too. You put your work out there to be read, absorbed and reacted to. Not everyone is going to read your intent, or be able to follow all your lines of reasoning.
I will stipulate right here and now that I do not and cannot read everything you post. As a result, I agree that you know your work better than I ever could. You also know your intent, so for what it's worth, I accept your stated intent. You also use loaded words, which opens up your writing to a variety of reasonable interpretations. That's just the nature of the beast. This is a great summation, BTW: "I'm focused on smart actions and models that work. I don't care what the company or industry or the size. I want what's best for the overall economy and society, and have seen enough evidence to support the models I've discussed here as leading to that."
A couple of points just to close this out:
You continue to sue the word "upset" with regard to my writing. Please accept my word regarding my motivations. I am not "upset" or "worked-up" or "emotional." This is fun and interesting, and I'm learning a bit along the way. My approach generally (in work and life) requires me to write a lot, so the volume of discourse is not indicative of emotional state. If anything, seeing some of your reactions to my comments has made me curious to understand your motivations more, but surely not upset at you as a person or writer.
"It's not so many people. It's a rather small group of our readers -- many of whom are trolls. But a much larger group seems to get it." Actually, if you follow media - I'm sure you do - you know that the percentage of those who actually participate by posting (or calling to a talkshow, for example) is tiny compared to the actual number of readers (or listeners). While I don't fool myself into thinking that 30% of your readers interpret your work the way I do, I think it's fair to say - as I did above - that a material percentage (2%, 5%, I don't know) may. Just food for thought, know your audience and all that.
On the link provided: very helpful, indeed!
"It suggests that what you insist I have said or what you seem sure are my positions are actually not true at all, but a result of a self-selection bias on your part." And you go on to use the term "bias" several more times. Of course I'm biased, and so are you and everyone else on the planet. You self-select what you post and how you interpret the information provided. I do exactly the same thing. Yet, we disagree on some things. Is my bias worse than yours or does it make my interpretation less valid than yours? No. So it's a wash, a wash for all of us. The old saying goes "where you stand depends on where you sit." Still true, for all of us including you.
"Well, let's be clear here. Some businesses absolutely are ignoring it. Others are taking actions that won't help. And some are making smart moves." Indeed.
"What I did say is that IF there is ample evidence that by embracing it you can do better AND can serve your customers better, then it seems fair to say that it is rather silly not to do so." Okay, we agree. "Must" was probably too strong an interpretation of your writing. The disagreement is whether there is yet ample, applicable, scalable evidence, precisely as you note.
"On top of that, if you then try to pass laws that make illegal these things because of your unwillingness to embrace such efforts, then it is fair to say you are holding back society." I think it's more complicated than simply not wanting to embrace the new. It IS definitely about protecting existing markets and revenue, which is a responsibility of any business, don't you think? I agree that if shelling out bucks to lobbyists to further entrench their market to the exclusion of anything new is ALL a business does, then it is clearly bad for that market, and potentially the economy and society over time. But few businesses - I think we agree on this - are truly doing nothing and acting absolutely against any and all change. Most are working both sides of this, to varying degrees, to see what ultimately pans out while protecting the revenue in the short term.
"From what I have seen, it's a rather small percentage who make these errors. Not everyone agrees with me, certainly, but the majority of folks seem to get it. A small minority have big blinders on (often for professional reasons). Then there are the trolls." As mentioned earlier, I bet the reader numbers are far greater than the participant numbers, I'm sure, so you may want to consider that. As for the rest of the thought, probably more of that understandable frustration you harbor. Folks who disagree with you (you call it an "error") either have blinders on or are trolls...is there any room in that group for reasonable people who just disagree with you on some points as a matter of foundation, differing experiences or interpretation?
As for who is right and who is wrong, I don't view this forum as a battle between the Macro Right and Macro Wrong. I think there's going to be a whole lot of nuance to all of these topics, especially since economics and markets do not exist in an a-political, unbiased context where individual interest, national interest and corporate interests are all one in the same.
Good point, though I'd say it more like those that find a way to legally profit from these activities have moved that comments from the black market back into the legitimate market. That's a good thing, we agree.
I'm willing to ply, but here's the critical piece to make sure we're talking about the same thing: define "better off." And you mention government monopolies...is that what we're talking about here?
Good gracious, you are extremely frustrated with your own readers...your consumers. And the contempt you're starting to show is exactly what you rail against, isn't it? "If the trolls are going to try to pin something on me..." Wow! Named contributors to your forum are now summarily dismissed as trolls because they question you or don't "get" what you are saying? Quite damning. I started contributing not to be contrarian, but because I genuinely think some of your points are ill-supported or not practical in the real world. And I have also agreed with you from time to time. But I guess I haven't disagreed in the right way or about the right things, so I'm dismissed with the rest of the contributing trolls. That kinda says it all, doesn't it. Yet you continue for many, many paragraphs...
The challenge for you - not us trolls - is that this is your job. You presumably make your living from this. If so many people are "misreading" and "not understanding" your insightful prose, is it that so many people are bloody idiots or that there are real problems with the articulation of your views? Or is it a combination of this and those trolls having very different experiences in business than you? I love all the Econ 101 talk, but the fact is that few economists and even fewer professors of economics have ever made a payroll month after month, or sold those widgets they love to talk about. Yet, I listen and read and try to learn. Have you ever considered putting together a Masnick Primer or something to give people a foothold in your thinking so as to reduce your own increasingly obvious frustration? This would be a very significant act of inclusion which any business should embrace in order to expand its market. And you could give it away for FREE!
As for your response to my response to your response to my response to your post, in very brief terms:
I'm done with addressing your emotionality. It's pretty clear at this point so, enough said. And, okay, entitlement is what you say it is.
On the "stupid" stuff, I spent exactly 30 seconds and executed two searches, finding - easily - two examples of you using stupid as an adverb when describing actions of some businesses. That it as an adjective didn't pop-up first is a function of the time I put in, not it's lack of existence. If you never used a specific word in the narrow context you have responded with, I do apologize. But the ease with which I found a bit of back-up makes my point. And you are very tone-aware, so you must know it, as well.
"We've given examples big, small, medium. We've explained the theory big, small and medium." Meh, your examples are mostly small, and your theories are too small to be big or too big to be practical in many cases. But, fine. I'm sure you've explained everything in all ways, but the thick trolls just can't get it.
"Again, this is hilarious, since the other thread again insists exactly the opposite." So now I have to explain the writings of others in this forum who disagree with you in different ways than I? The fact that others disagree with you in other ways somehow devalues or renders my disagreement invalid? Again, classic devices to avoid understanding, embracing and improving the articulation of your own point of view.
"When a large % of the market is engaged in such "illegal" activity, and many vendors/producers are figuring out how to profit from it, you have to have pretty big blinders on to think that said activity is (a) going to be illegal much longer or (b) a problem. It's an opportunity. Stop complaining that it's illegal. Start focusing on how to profit from it." Why the quotes around illegal, Mike? After all, you claim you don't try to justify this activity, so why be afraid. The activities we're both referring to here are - in most western countries - illegal. Fact. Done. I agree with you that this has to be addressed and incorporated by business, but I disagree on two counts: 1) Business are not all ignoring this as you too often intimate...they are working to figure it out as I have previously mentioned. 2) I reject the a priori that if enough people do it, business and the legal system MUST cave and embrace the activity or a) die, b) harbor guilt for holding all of society back or 3) be "stupid" (or in supportable terms using your adverbial language "acting stupidly").
"That you misread what I write is not my fault." Actually, it kinda is. I mean, you are the professional here, trying to make a living at this, right? I'm no genius, but I am hardly a fool, so if I'm "misreading" your work constantly, you can be pretty sure that a material percentage of your potential market suffers from the malady. Following the Masnick advice, should you ignore that, bitch about it, or change things?
"There are too many exceptions these days for it not to be the rule." What? My comment was that you were leaning too much on the absolutely, factually few court cases and examples of overzealous pursuit of flimsy IP claims by businesses and industry groups. You are now saying this is the rule...this is how MOST businesses act MOST of the time? Amazing.
"Yet, based on your posts here, I'm beginning to think we're going to go through this pointless struggle with folks like yourself one by one as the industries' old guard refuse to admit that basic economics actually impacts their industry." If the struggle is pointless, Mike, why do you carry on so? If we're all such thick trolls, why bother?
"What a waste of brainpower." It needn't be that way, Mike. But this is your show, so it's your call.
Not confused at all, and I don't disagree with your points. The context of the discussion "we" are having is week beyond the specifics o this article. Mike uses this types of articles to (attempt to) make broader points. That's where his points often fall part, partly or completely. As it relates you this specific article not in any broader context, sure, we agree.
Your GM example is a very good one, as they did actively work to in many ways to structurally allow for inferior product. But that's not a good parallel for much of the discussion in this area on tech dirt where the product isn't so much at issue as the means and legality of distribution.
I'd also note the nuance regarding Hulu and other free services. While many of them are great, and I use them myself, they are far from proven to be sustainable, much less profitable. I, too, hope they figure the whole model and plan out because I find them very useful. But much remains to be seen.
The only important part of your response is the phrase "if everyone can be better off." That's a BIG if, not hardly proven even in a purely intellectual sense in these very pages. Destroying (through legal means or by undermining the existing through illegal acts) the IP underpinnings of modern business and society (please: no 16th century examples are needed here) would decidedly be immoral if it irreparably damages the society it purports to help.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Talks About Connecting With Fans: Fans WANT To Support Artists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I remind you that if you want people to understand your points, you need to provide more info...burden is always on the author to provide context so they are properly understood. You respond with the prejorative and "insulting" (to use your oft used term) "It's impossible to educate people who choose to be ignorant." Huh? I'm asking to be educated...provide me information so I can see if your argument - belief in this case - holds water.
I asked you to please define what "huge" as it relates to this artist. You respond "I'm not your personal economics instructor." Believe me, though I read a lot of what you write, I don't want you to be my economics instructor (and you're not the only one who spent time at Cornell, bub). Strangely, I didn't ask about economics, I asked you to provide a modicum of data to support your "huge" claim surrounding this artist, an artist in which you appear to have some sort of interest. More emotion, frustration with your readers and, yes, misdirection.
Then you proceed into a tirade that lays out your various, broadly cast frustrations with your own readership. You are saying that you "showed how it worked" at various levels and such. Blah, blah. You cite a limited numbers of examples and wonder why people don't see it as definitive, broad-based, irrefutable proof of your contentions. There are tens of millions of businesses and probably tens of thousands of business models in the world...you find a few dozen, perhaps more, and then stamp your feet that everyone is "ignorant" or a "fool" for not seeing I your way. Evidence of either frustration or desperation...I can't tell which anymore. But you certainly seem to be getting a bit too cool for your own room.
And finally your HILARIOUS comment that 'What I find hilarious is the way people shift their responses to me." Mike, hello? I addressed your points, one of which was a thinly veiled attempt to reframe a poster's question in response (the kids thing). A cheap literary trick. And then you respond to me with points and insults all over the map, redirecting and shifting to the max. Ironic at best, hypocritical at worst. You're making it difficult to want to take the time to read more of your stuff. Nobody's scolding you (a very interesting, personal and emotional word to chose). But I am questioning you...that's okay, isn't it? After all, this is an "opinion site."
On the post: Amanda Palmer Talks About Connecting With Fans: Fans WANT To Support Artists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, no I haven't. I have no idea who she as. As the Pontificator-in-Residence, it's really kinda your job to educate the uninitiated. So, how many people show up when she tweets? Perhaps she's got a small but dedicated following....a high response rate on small numbers, rather than a typical low rate on big numbers. I have no idea as you've presented no information other than your subjective assessment that it's "huge." And since you seem to have some sort of interest in this artist, since she's a participant in your experiment/fund raiser, I take your assessment with a grain of salt.
"No, don't make up stuff. It doesn't make you look smart. I didn't dismiss radio. It is still a big player, but it's been growing smaller, especially among demographics that matter. You can pretend otherwise, but you'd be a fool."
There's your emotional reaction again, Mike. In response to the previous poster's comment that "it pays to get the local marketing that gets the bands interviewed on radio," you said, "as if kids still listen to the radio." and as for MTV and Rolling Stone (the magazine world), you said: "As if kids still pay attention to either. How old are you? This is no longer the 80s." So you introduced the demographic construct in order to dismiss that radio, music television and magazines are important factors in the dissemination of music. Looks as if you decided to frame the argument using the demographics in order to flimsily support your contention that radio, TV and print are non-factors. The CORRECTION you included in your response to me is accurate ("It is still a big player, but it's been growing smaller, especially among demographics that matter.") but that is definitely not the impression you clearly left in your prior post. And I can tell you that the "demographics that matter" in the magazine world, don't stop at 18 or 25, as an example. To quote you, you can pretend otherwise, but you'd be a "fool."
On the IS versus SHOULD, okay, that's your subjective point of view, fine. The fact is that the more economically vested in your view of "IS" you become, the more subjective and insistent you become. Look at your own "experiment" which, while entertaining, basically appears to be simple fund raising for you and your buddies, not to mention the books, speeches, etc. None of which I begrudge you...enjoy, make what you can while you can. You can say and even really believe that it's because that's where you genuinely see the market going. I see you working hard to make it GO there in your microcosmal world, which attaches more subjectivity and emotionality to it as you take it further and further. Your are not a dispassionate, academic observer, but someone with increasingly vested interests in seeing the items you predict (okay "observe") come to fruition. Nothing wrong with that, but it colors your verbiage and strains objectivity.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Talks About Connecting With Fans: Fans WANT To Support Artists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also interesting to see you dismissing radio, almost as though it doesn't exist, similar to the way you sometimes seem to dismiss the traditional music industry. These are still multi-billion dollar industries. Surely, it's more difficult for them to eek out the margin they prefer and their shares are declining, but they are still massive factors in music adoption and distribution. Dismissing radio, videos and such out of hand really undercuts your arguments. Inconvenient truths they are, I suppose.
I know that a lot of your musings on TechDirt are about what you think the future should be. But it's also important to accurately and completely reflect what the state of the present market is right now.
On the post: Stephen Fry: Time For Politicians To Represent People's Interest On Copyright, Not Corporations
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not competing with "free"
On the post: Stephen Fry: Time For Politicians To Represent People's Interest On Copyright, Not Corporations
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not competing with "free"
But the point you made was about the broader market. Are you contending that MOST of the illegal downloads being done globally (or in the US or Europe) are for content which is not now or ever available legally?
I'd also note that a number of your examples are more about timing and your personal convenience than the willful, indefinite withholding of product from a market for no business reason. Games are often released in Japan earlier than in the US...so do U.S.-based gamers have a right to download those games because they don't want to wait a week or a month? What is the "convenience cutoff" which justifies this illegal activity - one week, one month, one year? Illegally downloading content because you don't want to wait a week or a month is a very different scenario (morally and from a business market perspective) than downloading something which is not at all available and never will be. Impatience as an excuse for illegal activity is not a great foundation, IMHO.
On the post: Stephen Fry: Time For Politicians To Represent People's Interest On Copyright, Not Corporations
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not competing with "free"
On the post: The No Responsibility Society: Suing Because Your Daughter Is Texting So Much She Didn't Notice The Open Manhole
Re: Okay, seriously...
On the post: This Is Investigative Reporting? News Corp. Allegedly Hacked Into Phones, Paid Off People To Silence Them
Re:
On the post: This Is Investigative Reporting? News Corp. Allegedly Hacked Into Phones, Paid Off People To Silence Them
What is "pure?"
On the post: How Toyota Is Using Patents To Slow The Growth Of Hybrid Vehicles
Re: NOT "Effectively Impossible"
On the post: How Toyota Is Using Patents To Slow The Growth Of Hybrid Vehicles
Re:
On the post: How Toyota Is Using Patents To Slow The Growth Of Hybrid Vehicles
Re: System working as designed.
On the post: How Toyota Is Using Patents To Slow The Growth Of Hybrid Vehicles
NOT "Effectively Impossible"
This is a great example of where patents - and a desire to avoid paying a competitor to license their system - actually spurred innovation. Now Ford has a product which many analysts believe represents a solid evolution and restatement of hybrid technology, on a platform that is reviewing extremely well (and with better crash tests, mileage and expected quality!) than the present Camry hybrid. Boy those Toyota patents sure stifled innovation. Wait...what???
Look, I agree in general that the hyper-patenting trend of slapping one (or attempting to) on every little thing, not to protected your investment, but largely for the purposes heading off competitors can negatively impact innovation in some cases, even though it is surely a legal practice. But this is a really poor example that is readily refuted.
On the post: How Does Offering Free Content Insult Those Who Pay?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Entitlement - Isn't THAT Rich
I will stipulate right here and now that I do not and cannot read everything you post. As a result, I agree that you know your work better than I ever could. You also know your intent, so for what it's worth, I accept your stated intent. You also use loaded words, which opens up your writing to a variety of reasonable interpretations. That's just the nature of the beast. This is a great summation, BTW: "I'm focused on smart actions and models that work. I don't care what the company or industry or the size. I want what's best for the overall economy and society, and have seen enough evidence to support the models I've discussed here as leading to that."
A couple of points just to close this out:
You continue to sue the word "upset" with regard to my writing. Please accept my word regarding my motivations. I am not "upset" or "worked-up" or "emotional." This is fun and interesting, and I'm learning a bit along the way. My approach generally (in work and life) requires me to write a lot, so the volume of discourse is not indicative of emotional state. If anything, seeing some of your reactions to my comments has made me curious to understand your motivations more, but surely not upset at you as a person or writer.
"It's not so many people. It's a rather small group of our readers -- many of whom are trolls. But a much larger group seems to get it." Actually, if you follow media - I'm sure you do - you know that the percentage of those who actually participate by posting (or calling to a talkshow, for example) is tiny compared to the actual number of readers (or listeners). While I don't fool myself into thinking that 30% of your readers interpret your work the way I do, I think it's fair to say - as I did above - that a material percentage (2%, 5%, I don't know) may. Just food for thought, know your audience and all that.
On the link provided: very helpful, indeed!
"It suggests that what you insist I have said or what you seem sure are my positions are actually not true at all, but a result of a self-selection bias on your part." And you go on to use the term "bias" several more times. Of course I'm biased, and so are you and everyone else on the planet. You self-select what you post and how you interpret the information provided. I do exactly the same thing. Yet, we disagree on some things. Is my bias worse than yours or does it make my interpretation less valid than yours? No. So it's a wash, a wash for all of us. The old saying goes "where you stand depends on where you sit." Still true, for all of us including you.
"Well, let's be clear here. Some businesses absolutely are ignoring it. Others are taking actions that won't help. And some are making smart moves." Indeed.
"What I did say is that IF there is ample evidence that by embracing it you can do better AND can serve your customers better, then it seems fair to say that it is rather silly not to do so." Okay, we agree. "Must" was probably too strong an interpretation of your writing. The disagreement is whether there is yet ample, applicable, scalable evidence, precisely as you note.
"On top of that, if you then try to pass laws that make illegal these things because of your unwillingness to embrace such efforts, then it is fair to say you are holding back society." I think it's more complicated than simply not wanting to embrace the new. It IS definitely about protecting existing markets and revenue, which is a responsibility of any business, don't you think? I agree that if shelling out bucks to lobbyists to further entrench their market to the exclusion of anything new is ALL a business does, then it is clearly bad for that market, and potentially the economy and society over time. But few businesses - I think we agree on this - are truly doing nothing and acting absolutely against any and all change. Most are working both sides of this, to varying degrees, to see what ultimately pans out while protecting the revenue in the short term.
"From what I have seen, it's a rather small percentage who make these errors. Not everyone agrees with me, certainly, but the majority of folks seem to get it. A small minority have big blinders on (often for professional reasons). Then there are the trolls." As mentioned earlier, I bet the reader numbers are far greater than the participant numbers, I'm sure, so you may want to consider that. As for the rest of the thought, probably more of that understandable frustration you harbor. Folks who disagree with you (you call it an "error") either have blinders on or are trolls...is there any room in that group for reasonable people who just disagree with you on some points as a matter of foundation, differing experiences or interpretation?
As for who is right and who is wrong, I don't view this forum as a battle between the Macro Right and Macro Wrong. I think there's going to be a whole lot of nuance to all of these topics, especially since economics and markets do not exist in an a-political, unbiased context where individual interest, national interest and corporate interests are all one in the same.
On the post: How Does Offering Free Content Insult Those Who Pay?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Entitlement
On the post: How Does Offering Free Content Insult Those Who Pay?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Entitlement
On the post: How Does Offering Free Content Insult Those Who Pay?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Entitlement - Isn't THAT Rich
On the post: How Does Offering Free Content Insult Those Who Pay?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Entitlement - Isn't THAT Rich
The challenge for you - not us trolls - is that this is your job. You presumably make your living from this. If so many people are "misreading" and "not understanding" your insightful prose, is it that so many people are bloody idiots or that there are real problems with the articulation of your views? Or is it a combination of this and those trolls having very different experiences in business than you? I love all the Econ 101 talk, but the fact is that few economists and even fewer professors of economics have ever made a payroll month after month, or sold those widgets they love to talk about. Yet, I listen and read and try to learn. Have you ever considered putting together a Masnick Primer or something to give people a foothold in your thinking so as to reduce your own increasingly obvious frustration? This would be a very significant act of inclusion which any business should embrace in order to expand its market. And you could give it away for FREE!
As for your response to my response to your response to my response to your post, in very brief terms:
I'm done with addressing your emotionality. It's pretty clear at this point so, enough said. And, okay, entitlement is what you say it is.
On the "stupid" stuff, I spent exactly 30 seconds and executed two searches, finding - easily - two examples of you using stupid as an adverb when describing actions of some businesses. That it as an adjective didn't pop-up first is a function of the time I put in, not it's lack of existence. If you never used a specific word in the narrow context you have responded with, I do apologize. But the ease with which I found a bit of back-up makes my point. And you are very tone-aware, so you must know it, as well.
"We've given examples big, small, medium. We've explained the theory big, small and medium." Meh, your examples are mostly small, and your theories are too small to be big or too big to be practical in many cases. But, fine. I'm sure you've explained everything in all ways, but the thick trolls just can't get it.
"Again, this is hilarious, since the other thread again insists exactly the opposite." So now I have to explain the writings of others in this forum who disagree with you in different ways than I? The fact that others disagree with you in other ways somehow devalues or renders my disagreement invalid? Again, classic devices to avoid understanding, embracing and improving the articulation of your own point of view.
"When a large % of the market is engaged in such "illegal" activity, and many vendors/producers are figuring out how to profit from it, you have to have pretty big blinders on to think that said activity is (a) going to be illegal much longer or (b) a problem. It's an opportunity. Stop complaining that it's illegal. Start focusing on how to profit from it." Why the quotes around illegal, Mike? After all, you claim you don't try to justify this activity, so why be afraid. The activities we're both referring to here are - in most western countries - illegal. Fact. Done. I agree with you that this has to be addressed and incorporated by business, but I disagree on two counts: 1) Business are not all ignoring this as you too often intimate...they are working to figure it out as I have previously mentioned. 2) I reject the a priori that if enough people do it, business and the legal system MUST cave and embrace the activity or a) die, b) harbor guilt for holding all of society back or 3) be "stupid" (or in supportable terms using your adverbial language "acting stupidly").
"That you misread what I write is not my fault." Actually, it kinda is. I mean, you are the professional here, trying to make a living at this, right? I'm no genius, but I am hardly a fool, so if I'm "misreading" your work constantly, you can be pretty sure that a material percentage of your potential market suffers from the malady. Following the Masnick advice, should you ignore that, bitch about it, or change things?
"There are too many exceptions these days for it not to be the rule." What? My comment was that you were leaning too much on the absolutely, factually few court cases and examples of overzealous pursuit of flimsy IP claims by businesses and industry groups. You are now saying this is the rule...this is how MOST businesses act MOST of the time? Amazing.
"Yet, based on your posts here, I'm beginning to think we're going to go through this pointless struggle with folks like yourself one by one as the industries' old guard refuse to admit that basic economics actually impacts their industry." If the struggle is pointless, Mike, why do you carry on so? If we're all such thick trolls, why bother?
"What a waste of brainpower." It needn't be that way, Mike. But this is your show, so it's your call.
On the post: How Does Offering Free Content Insult Those Who Pay?
Re: Re: Entitlement - Isn't THAT Rich
Your GM example is a very good one, as they did actively work to in many ways to structurally allow for inferior product. But that's not a good parallel for much of the discussion in this area on tech dirt where the product isn't so much at issue as the means and legality of distribution.
I'd also note the nuance regarding Hulu and other free services. While many of them are great, and I use them myself, they are far from proven to be sustainable, much less profitable. I, too, hope they figure the whole model and plan out because I find them very useful. But much remains to be seen.
On the post: How Does Offering Free Content Insult Those Who Pay?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Entitlement - Isn't THAT Rich
Next >>