You're not just saying people will do it, you're celebrating the fact that people will do it. You think it's someone's own fault that others will violate their rights. You enjoy rubbing their face in it. That's why you write "gotcha" articles pointing this out over and over again. You never blame the person doing the violating. You always blame the victim. Broken record indeed.
No, you just said that "Warner/Universal/Sony/EMI" are evil. You know, "all of them." I'm sure you can name a hole-in-the-wall label that's not evil, but the fact is, you think all of the big labels are evil. I don't even care that you think that. I just think it's hilarious that you waffling on the issue.
Regardless, I can't help but notice you didn't deny that your statements are nothing but unsupported, conclusory hearsay.
Um. Have you ever spoken to someone who signed a major label deal? I do all the time -- and they're all sold on the fact that Warner/Universal/Sony/EMI are going to make them rockstars. All of them.
And the deal has explicit terms under which they're going to make money.
HuffPo doesn't do that. It explicitly says you're not making money directly from us.
If a record label set itself up and said "here's the deal, you won't make any money from us, but we'll promote the hell out of you *and* you're free to capitalize on that with different business models" and people sign up for that, that would be fair.
But that's not what happens. Find me a musician who was given that deal. Otherwise, stop misrepresenting what I say.
So the only evidence that you can give that the labels are all evil is unsupported, conclusory hearsay. Sounds about right.
And please note by saying, "that's not what happens," you are implying that it's "all bad." Hence, my statement above that you think "musicians who make this arrangement with a label = all bad" seems to be correct, and you're claim that I'm misrepresenting you is incorrect.
Which is it? Is it "not what happens," therefore making it "all bad," or is it not as bad as you are saying it is, making your statement that it's "not what happens" a misrepresentation? You've trapped yourself in a corner. People who lie a lot often do.
Prove that I am "in the business of misrepresentation." Prove it about me, specifically, without making generalizations. You cannot. You have no idea what you're talking about, as you don't know me.
If they get something else in return of value and know the exchange that they're going in for, sure. But that's not what happens, is it? The labels pitch them on how much money they're all going to make as rockstars... and then use accounting tricks to never pay them. That's quite different than being totally upfront about the deal, isn't it?
That would be different, if it were true. Exactly how many musicians are tricked into thinking they will be made into rockstars, and how many are told up front the reality of the deal they are getting into? You make it sound like every one of them is tricked, and I suspect that's not actually the case. I'd like to see the evidence you have, if any.
I do recognize my own bias, that's not the problem, it's the ridiculous, one-sided, and less-than-honest way the Mike presents certain things that I'm commenting on.
And that's the point: the people who chose -- of their own free will -- to post at the Huffington Post for free did so because they clearly got value out of doing so. Otherwise, why would they have done so in the first place? To then say that the only proper thing is to pay them is completely missing the point.
So bloggers who make this arrangement with a blog = all good, but musicians who make this arrangement with a label = all bad?
Actually, I think it is just another move to show that the current copyright laws are ineffective at protecting content producer's rights. If lawsuits like this keep getting tossed out, it's more fuel on the fire for the government to act to change the laws to clear things up, to knock over the legal blinds that offenders are hiding behind.
Agreed. It sounds like some new tools for rights holders are in the works. Should be great fodder for our IP-abolitionist host whose de facto position is that any attempt to thwart piracy must be bad, even though, ironically, he says that he doesn't think it's OK to pirate. Um, yeah, sure...
Once again, using law firm Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver under the name US Copyright Group (whose existing lawsuits of this nature haven't gone too well so far), a lawsuit lumping together 6,500 unnamed people accused of file sharing has been launched.
How do you know the existing lawsuits "haven't gone too well so far"? By whose standard are you judging them? Do you have specific information about how much money they brought in versus how much they anticipated? Isn't it just as likely that the lawsuits went better than they expected?
Of course, as with previous such lawsuits, I'm sure there will be a quick back and forth as someone points out that lumping all of these defendants into a single case is not proper, and it'll depend on whether or not the judge is reasonable to see if the case will actually move forward.
So if the judge allows it to move forward, that judge is unreasonable? And vice versa? Is that your reasoned legal analysis of the situation?
Nothing in this action will make any of those people more interested in paying money to see any more movies from Nu Image in the future. In fact, about the only thing it will do is give a large group of people an excuse not to pay to see Nu Image movies.
You mean the people who have already demonstrated that they are willing to rip off Nu Image's IP may continue to rip off Nu Image's IP in the future? That's not very remarkable. These people don't need an excuse not to pay, they've already decided that pirating is OK.
That's not exactly a brilliant business strategy.
Says you. It's hilarious how much disdain you have for anyone who tries to fight piracy. It's very, very telling.
What is the source of your claim that "the intention wasn't to 'slow down' prostitution"? Whether or not it did is relevant to whether or not Mike's claim was based in reality. I think he just made it up, so that's why I pointed it out. It's interesting because he makes a living nitpicking every last detail of his opponents' statements, but he himself just makes up stuff when it suits him.
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re:
You're not just saying people will do it, you're celebrating the fact that people will do it. You think it's someone's own fault that others will violate their rights. You enjoy rubbing their face in it. That's why you write "gotcha" articles pointing this out over and over again. You never blame the person doing the violating. You always blame the victim. Broken record indeed.
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re:
On the post: Did The Record Labels Kill The Golden Goose In Music Video Games?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why The Arguments That The Huffington Post Must Pay Bloggers Is Misguided: Payment Isn't Just Money
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you just said that "Warner/Universal/Sony/EMI" are evil. You know, "all of them." I'm sure you can name a hole-in-the-wall label that's not evil, but the fact is, you think all of the big labels are evil. I don't even care that you think that. I just think it's hilarious that you waffling on the issue.
Regardless, I can't help but notice you didn't deny that your statements are nothing but unsupported, conclusory hearsay.
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/153246/i-do-what-i-want
On the post: Why The Arguments That The Huffington Post Must Pay Bloggers Is Misguided: Payment Isn't Just Money
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why The Arguments That The Huffington Post Must Pay Bloggers Is Misguided: Payment Isn't Just Money
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the deal has explicit terms under which they're going to make money.
HuffPo doesn't do that. It explicitly says you're not making money directly from us.
If a record label set itself up and said "here's the deal, you won't make any money from us, but we'll promote the hell out of you *and* you're free to capitalize on that with different business models" and people sign up for that, that would be fair.
But that's not what happens. Find me a musician who was given that deal. Otherwise, stop misrepresenting what I say.
So the only evidence that you can give that the labels are all evil is unsupported, conclusory hearsay. Sounds about right.
On the post: Why The Arguments That The Huffington Post Must Pay Bloggers Is Misguided: Payment Isn't Just Money
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is it? Is it "not what happens," therefore making it "all bad," or is it not as bad as you are saying it is, making your statement that it's "not what happens" a misrepresentation? You've trapped yourself in a corner. People who lie a lot often do.
On the post: Why The Arguments That The Huffington Post Must Pay Bloggers Is Misguided: Payment Isn't Just Money
Re: @ average_joe
On the post: Why The Arguments That The Huffington Post Must Pay Bloggers Is Misguided: Payment Isn't Just Money
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That would be different, if it were true. Exactly how many musicians are tricked into thinking they will be made into rockstars, and how many are told up front the reality of the deal they are getting into? You make it sound like every one of them is tricked, and I suspect that's not actually the case. I'd like to see the evidence you have, if any.
On the post: Why The Arguments That The Huffington Post Must Pay Bloggers Is Misguided: Payment Isn't Just Money
Re: Re:
You sure do misrepresent what I say a lot.
Are you now going on the record as saying that it's not bad for musicians to sign up with labels even if they get no money in return?
On the post: Did The Record Labels Kill The Golden Goose In Music Video Games?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Did The Record Labels Kill The Golden Goose In Music Video Games?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Did The Record Labels Kill The Golden Goose In Music Video Games?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why The Arguments That The Huffington Post Must Pay Bloggers Is Misguided: Payment Isn't Just Money
So bloggers who make this arrangement with a blog = all good, but musicians who make this arrangement with a label = all bad?
On the post: Did The Record Labels Kill The Golden Goose In Music Video Games?
Re:
I agree with the first part, and it's really kind of desperate and sad lately.
On the post: MPAA Files Surprisingly Weak Billion Dollar Lawsuit Against Hotfile
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Expendables Producers Begin Process Of Shaking Down Thousands For Cash
Re:
Agreed. It sounds like some new tools for rights holders are in the works. Should be great fodder for our IP-abolitionist host whose de facto position is that any attempt to thwart piracy must be bad, even though, ironically, he says that he doesn't think it's OK to pirate. Um, yeah, sure...
On the post: Expendables Producers Begin Process Of Shaking Down Thousands For Cash
How do you know the existing lawsuits "haven't gone too well so far"? By whose standard are you judging them? Do you have specific information about how much money they brought in versus how much they anticipated? Isn't it just as likely that the lawsuits went better than they expected?
Of course, as with previous such lawsuits, I'm sure there will be a quick back and forth as someone points out that lumping all of these defendants into a single case is not proper, and it'll depend on whether or not the judge is reasonable to see if the case will actually move forward.
So if the judge allows it to move forward, that judge is unreasonable? And vice versa? Is that your reasoned legal analysis of the situation?
Nothing in this action will make any of those people more interested in paying money to see any more movies from Nu Image in the future. In fact, about the only thing it will do is give a large group of people an excuse not to pay to see Nu Image movies.
You mean the people who have already demonstrated that they are willing to rip off Nu Image's IP may continue to rip off Nu Image's IP in the future? That's not very remarkable. These people don't need an excuse not to pay, they've already decided that pirating is OK.
That's not exactly a brilliant business strategy.
Says you. It's hilarious how much disdain you have for anyone who tries to fight piracy. It's very, very telling.
On the post: Prostitutes Have Just Moved From Craigslist To Facebook
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>