"Everything we've written about her has been based on links from other sites, so it is incorrect to suggest that only we write about her."
Good point! You've got one guy complaining that you're the only guy writing and another guy complaining that you've cited too much from someone else. Trolls are a rare breed, logic and reason means nothing to 'em.
"If you have data that supports this then please link to it."
Actually, any such data would be irrelevant because Ryan's underlying argument is flawed.
His argument (whether it's true or not) is that laws and mortality should not apply to the wealthy because they give us so much in return.
Should we allow people to murder, steal, rob, etc., merely because they give society a cut of it back? Should we let the bank robber go free because he donates 10% of it to charity? Maybe Ryan does, but I don't think so.
Regardless of how much the wealthy give to their pet causes, they should follow the same laws we follow. We're a nation of laws, not a nation laws for some and not for others if they give us a cut.
"Plus, the wealthiest are more charitable by percentage of income than anybody else"
So your augment is that normal rules, laws, and morality shouldn't apply to the wealthy because their wealth will trickle down to us poor peasants, eventually. Are you sure you're not David Stockman?! What decade is this anyway?!
There is nothing wrong with collecting profits to which you are entitled.
Greed, however, goes beyond such profits. It's about collecting profits to which you are not entitled. Greed makes you do things you shouldn't be doing to get those extra profits. Greed equates a musician performing in a venue in front of paying customers to ringing phone.
There's nothing wrong with collecting profits from a musician performing at a venue. However, it's pure greed to collect profits from the guy (or from his phone company) merely because his phone is ringing.
When I hear stories like this, or about how a ringtone constitutes a public performance, I think about the old days when we used to carry around boom boxes (aka ghetto boxes). There was absolutely no talk in the 70s that playing your music at the beach required a performance license. What changed? Greed? Copyright being bent way too far? This is purely insane.
"But it seems to me that the market for content consumption (music, books, whatever) is limited more by human attention (on the part of the content consumers) than by the amount of money the buyers have to spend."
I don't know if this helps or not, but this is how I think of it. The biggest obstacle for any musician is not piracy, but is obscurity.
In the old days, the only way to overcome obscurity was via a label who got your music on the radio or on MTV. Millions of people would hear it, and if it was good, would buy it. (Sometimes they'd buy it even if it was not good!)
Mike is not saying that anyone can gain a large fan base with their music. You still need talent. You still need songs that people want to hear. But nowadays if you have those songs, you no longer need a label, radio, or MTV. You can connect with fans and build a fan base without them.
I just wanted to add. It is hard work. It is doable. And it's not only possible, it's highly probable.
In the old days, you could work your ass off recording and touring and get nothing out of it. Heck, there are thusands of artists that worked, recorded, and toured, got signed, and still obtained no success.
However, nowadays if you create good music (i.e., music people want to hear) it's highly probable that you can gain a large following.
Will you get your face on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine? Probably not. Will have you thousands of fans throughout the world. Almost certainly.
Rather than installing an app that tells you where the traps and cameras are, wouldn't it be easier to simply not speed and to not run red lights?!
On a side note, I used to live in the Baltimore/DC area. Someone told me of the three car rule. I.e., three cars can run a red light before a cop can issue a ticket. Because it happens so often, I actually believed it for a few seconds before realizing it was a joke.
As you point out, embedding a video is nothing more than hotlinking. When you hotlink the content never flows through your server. You actually never make a copy of it. The content flows directly from the host server to the end user's computer. All the embed code does is tell the browser where the host file is. Once again, the embed code does not create a copy. And the content never flows through your server.
I've written before how hotlinking is neither stealing nor any violation of copyright. So I'm totally perplexed at what legal basis ASCAP is relying upon.
My hope is that they're simply confused about what embedding a video really entails. However, my fear is that they know, but simply do not care and are acting purely on greed.
Yoko Ono is a copyright troll. The wonderful Japanese pop band Puffy AmiYumi had to get permission from Yoko when they used a picture of themselves laying in bed on a cover of their CD because it was similar to Yoko and Lennon's "sleep-in" protest.
First, there simply now way a protest could be copyrighted in such a way that someone else could not perform a similar protest. "I'm sorry, but you're going to have to stop this anti-war protest. I have copyright on that."
Second, I find it hard to believe that Yoko owns the exclusive right of all pictures of people laying in bed. That's simply fricken asinine.
My guess is that the judge was tired of bat-shit-crazy Yoko being in her courtroom so he ruled in her favor just to get rid of her.
Which is not surprising because you're likely completely ignorant about the law and with legal concepts such as apparent authority. Why someone so ignorant about a topic feels a need to comment about the topic is way beyond me.
However, copyrights are still big business where big business is concerned. If some corporation wants to use your song in an advertisment, movie, TV show, etc., copyright ensures you get paid. That very important and still highly relevant aspect of copyright is not going away anytime soon.
This shows the amount of dogmatism surrounding this issue. People like David Coursey are so emotionally attached to their side that the mere act of learning about the other side is tantamount to some sort of betrayal.
On the post: From Russia, With Stupidity: Band Must Pay Fines To Itself
Re:
On the post: From Russia, With Stupidity: Band Must Pay Fines To Itself
My guess is that a portion of the money will be passed along to Deep Purple. A very small portion.
On the post: From Russia, With Stupidity: Band Must Pay Fines To Itself
My guess is that a portion of the money will be passed along to Deep Purple. A very small portion.
On the post: A Closer Look At How Amanda Palmer Connected With Fans To Become Successful
Re: Re: conflicts?
Good point! You've got one guy complaining that you're the only guy writing and another guy complaining that you've cited too much from someone else. Trolls are a rare breed, logic and reason means nothing to 'em.
On the post: A Closer Look At How Amanda Palmer Connected With Fans To Become Successful
Re: conflicts?
She went to the grocery store?! Damn, how did I fricken miss that?!
On the post: A Closer Look At How Amanda Palmer Connected With Fans To Become Successful
I'd be more than willing to connect with her, if given the chance!
On the post: Swedish Performing Rights Society Demands Cash From Companies That Let Employees Listen To Music
Re: @ Ryan
Actually, any such data would be irrelevant because Ryan's underlying argument is flawed.
His argument (whether it's true or not) is that laws and mortality should not apply to the wealthy because they give us so much in return.
Should we allow people to murder, steal, rob, etc., merely because they give society a cut of it back? Should we let the bank robber go free because he donates 10% of it to charity? Maybe Ryan does, but I don't think so.
Regardless of how much the wealthy give to their pet causes, they should follow the same laws we follow. We're a nation of laws, not a nation laws for some and not for others if they give us a cut.
On the post: Swedish Performing Rights Society Demands Cash From Companies That Let Employees Listen To Music
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So your augment is that normal rules, laws, and morality shouldn't apply to the wealthy because their wealth will trickle down to us poor peasants, eventually. Are you sure you're not David Stockman?! What decade is this anyway?!
On the post: Swedish Performing Rights Society Demands Cash From Companies That Let Employees Listen To Music
Re: Re:
I think you're confusing "greed" with "profit."
There is nothing wrong with collecting profits to which you are entitled.
Greed, however, goes beyond such profits. It's about collecting profits to which you are not entitled. Greed makes you do things you shouldn't be doing to get those extra profits. Greed equates a musician performing in a venue in front of paying customers to ringing phone.
There's nothing wrong with collecting profits from a musician performing at a venue. However, it's pure greed to collect profits from the guy (or from his phone company) merely because his phone is ringing.
On the post: Swedish Performing Rights Society Demands Cash From Companies That Let Employees Listen To Music
On the post: Trent Reznor Explains What A Musician Needs To Do To Be Successful These Days
Re:
I don't know if this helps or not, but this is how I think of it. The biggest obstacle for any musician is not piracy, but is obscurity.
In the old days, the only way to overcome obscurity was via a label who got your music on the radio or on MTV. Millions of people would hear it, and if it was good, would buy it. (Sometimes they'd buy it even if it was not good!)
Mike is not saying that anyone can gain a large fan base with their music. You still need talent. You still need songs that people want to hear. But nowadays if you have those songs, you no longer need a label, radio, or MTV. You can connect with fans and build a fan base without them.
On the post: Trent Reznor Explains What A Musician Needs To Do To Be Successful These Days
I just wanted to add. It is hard work. It is doable. And it's not only possible, it's highly probable.
In the old days, you could work your ass off recording and touring and get nothing out of it. Heck, there are thusands of artists that worked, recorded, and toured, got signed, and still obtained no success.
However, nowadays if you create good music (i.e., music people want to hear) it's highly probable that you can gain a large following.
Will you get your face on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine? Probably not. Will have you thousands of fans throughout the world. Almost certainly.
On the post: DC Police Chief Says It's 'Cowardly' To Monitor Speed Traps With Your iPhone
On a side note, I used to live in the Baltimore/DC area. Someone told me of the three car rule. I.e., three cars can run a red light before a cop can issue a ticket. Because it happens so often, I actually believed it for a few seconds before realizing it was a joke.
On the post: Why Does Wal-Mart Need A 3,379-Word Terms Of Use For Its Twitter Account?
Re: I blame the Economy
I'd guess that the average shelf stockers would and could compose a Terms of Use with fewer words than the average attorneys could.
On the post: Why Does Wal-Mart Need A 3,379-Word Terms Of Use For Its Twitter Account?
Some lawyers charge by the hour. Apparently, some others charge by the word.
On the post: ASCAP's Latest Claim: Embedding YouTube Videos Requires Public Performance License
I've written before how hotlinking is neither stealing nor any violation of copyright. So I'm totally perplexed at what legal basis ASCAP is relying upon.
My hope is that they're simply confused about what embedding a video really entails. However, my fear is that they know, but simply do not care and are acting purely on greed.
On the post: More Copyright Oddities: Why Does Yoko Ono Get To Hold Copyright On Lennon Videos Others Purchased
First, there simply now way a protest could be copyrighted in such a way that someone else could not perform a similar protest. "I'm sorry, but you're going to have to stop this anti-war protest. I have copyright on that."
Second, I find it hard to believe that Yoko owns the exclusive right of all pictures of people laying in bed. That's simply fricken asinine.
My guess is that the judge was tired of bat-shit-crazy Yoko being in her courtroom so he ruled in her favor just to get rid of her.
On the post: McDonald's Not Dismissed From Nude Photo Case... But It Can Sue Its Own Employee Too
Re:
On the post: Radiohead Manager, Nettwerk Launch New Label: Artists Get To Keep Their Copyright
He's looking at copyright too narrowly. He's looking at copyright from the consumer's perspective. I wholeheartedly agree that consumers should not be concerned with copyright.
However, copyrights are still big business where big business is concerned. If some corporation wants to use your song in an advertisment, movie, TV show, etc., copyright ensures you get paid. That very important and still highly relevant aspect of copyright is not going away anytime soon.
On the post: Fact Checking? Reporter Claims It Costs $27 To Use The Pirate Bay
Next >>