authors have a right to a reasonable profit from their work
You clearly have no idea what "right" means, nor how the free market works.
No one has a right to a reasonable profit. If you spend 10 million dollars making an awesome pet rock 2.0, you do not deserve to make a profit. You are able to try to make a profit, but you might fail. That's the chance everyone makes while creating something new.
Deal with it.
If you try to distribute an ebook for to me and charge 90% of the hardcover price, I will say thanks but no thanks. If I find someone willing to distribute that same e-book to me for free, I'm more likely to take them up on that offer. That's how it works.
then it's possible that a trademark complaint might come into play
So, by posting images of the Olympics that include the Olympic symbol, he might confuse someone into believing that those pictures were of the Olympics?
Well, I imagine if I wanted the largest possible crowd to come listen to me make music, I should get my music to as many ears a possible! (Assuming my music is worth listening to in the first place)
If only there were some platform to distribute digital media to many people in a cost effective manner. Maybe one that would indicate how many people thought my music was worth sharing, and thus how popular it is.
Why, if I got enough people interested in my music they'd be sharing it with as many people as possible-- my, that would be quite a torrent of bits!
Will your stance change when Comcast and the like institute a tiered cap on internet usage? Then adblock will be more beneficial than just blocking (usually annoying) ads, because I don't feel like letting ads "steal" my money.
Then who are you, O Anonymous One? What do you do?
but it you want to consume, there is a price to pay.
I think you are confused about who needs whom. I can make a copy of music for far cheaper than $1.29. Hell, ignoring the overhead costs of my computer and internet connection, I can do it for nearly free! Explain to me again why it costs $1.29 per copy, again?
Musicians should get paid to make music. I agree with this wholeheartedly. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that every time a musician makes music, he or she should get paid. I, however, do not agree that musicians should get paid to make copies of music. I can make copies of music. That cute little girl from the Windows 7 commercials can probably make copies of music. It takes no skill, and no money, so charging for it is a worthless endeavor.
Read this again: Musicians get paid to make music, not for making copies of music.
It's Mike's approach on this to make it sound like musicians and song writers are trying to get something for nothing.
They *are* trying to get something for nothing! How do you not see what it is you are arguing for? With *ZERO* additional work they want to increase, without limit, the money they make. No extra work != more money.
at the end of the day, you are saying "artists don't deserve to get paid for their work".
As I've stated before, an artist should get paid for the act of making music, not for a digital recording of music.
Try again, Mr. I'm-not-a-shill-I-just-play-one-on-the-internet.
That's exactly the point, Mr. Shill, that strikes fear in the hearts of so many lazy "artists" who want to keep getting paid for doing absolutely nothing. No one can force us to buy anymore. We have so many other options that circumvent your silly "sell plastic discs" business models that you fear that you might have to get off your collective asses and work again. So you and your Executive Overlords are lobbying fast and hard to apply old laws to new technologies, or worse, to outright eliminate the new technologies. Your fear is not my concern. If any of you had talent, you'd know that the future is with you. However, somewhere along the lines "talent" has been replaced with "marketability". When I can download your entire shitty catalog and make an informed decision to not give you my money, you call it theft. When I can stream your shitty song to my computer for free, you act to apply old rules to that technology to cripple it, if not to outright kill it. *You* are so afraid of having to work like the majority of us that you have resorted to attacking your own fans, who ask only that they get what they want, when they want, how they want for a price they want. Your fans are not the problem, My Shilly friend, it's the people who download your song and decide you are a shitty artist, *that* is who you should be dealing with. Those are your so-called "lost sales", the one who are informed about your complete lack of talent and refuse to fund your "artistic" endeavors.
The standards of being a musician have now been raised. Those without talent need not apply.
That isn't "getting it", Dave. You can't say "Well, he gives a lot of digital stuff away for free, but this other digital stuff he sells, so he gets it."
The post you replied to is correct. If it's digital (and sometimes even if it's not, re:books) then a smart business model (aka one that "gets it") will ASSUME that it will be pirated and leverage that to increase sales of non-scarce goods.
I'm beginning to think that he doesn't "get it" as well as everyone gives him credit for.
However, part of "getting it" is that you realize that you no longer have a say over how your infinite goods are spread so you should find a business model that embraces that fact.
If I was a nice guy I'd ask an artist who doesn't "get it" if I could put their stuff on bit torrent, but if the artist "gets it" then I'd think he/she'd already be okay with it.
Looks like he didn't get what he thought he got.
PS- I am not a nice guy.
PPS- I have not been paid, or otherwise compensated, for this comment.
Maybe I misunderstood the basic premise of the site. I assumed from the article that it was some sort of "Yelp" for prostitutes. (Being at work, I opted to not visit the site.)
So, what I'm saying that a site based in California that allows you to rate your whore should be perfectly legal because there are places in the world that could (maybe?) utilize such a site. If prostitution were illegal everywhere, then the need for a prostitution site would be.. questionable.
Also, since the in the article that sexist lady for equality (huh?) said that there were reviews for prostitutes *in London* then it would be a good tool to locate those pesky hookers making people happy for money.
Maybe I'm using too many words here?
The bitch is dumb. (and not just for the Terminator jokes, either!)
On the post: Hollywood Can't Handle Anyone Connecting With Fans... So It Contractually Tries To Stop Them
Re:
Right, because knowing the plot line is going to stop someone from wanting to see the movie.
I'm looking at you, Titanic.
On the post: Do Libraries Need Permission To Lend Out Ebooks?
Re: how do i get started?
On the post: Do Libraries Need Permission To Lend Out Ebooks?
Re: Creators of works have rights
You clearly have no idea what "right" means, nor how the free market works.
No one has a right to a reasonable profit. If you spend 10 million dollars making an awesome pet rock 2.0, you do not deserve to make a profit. You are able to try to make a profit, but you might fail. That's the chance everyone makes while creating something new.
Deal with it.
If you try to distribute an ebook for to me and charge 90% of the hardcover price, I will say thanks but no thanks. If I find someone willing to distribute that same e-book to me for free, I'm more likely to take them up on that offer. That's how it works.
On the post: Is There Any New Technology The Copyright Industry Hasn't Tried To Stop?
The Answer
You're welcome.
On the post: Olympics Clarifies Problems With Flickr Photos... But Still Doesn't Make Sense
Re:
So, by posting images of the Olympics that include the Olympic symbol, he might confuse someone into believing that those pictures were of the Olympics?
I'm so confused.
On the post: Ralph Lauren Admits It Needs Photoshop Help... Doesn't Say Much About DMCA Help
Re: Re: Wha? Did my comprehension skills just fail me?
So we are in agreement that it isn't art then?
On the post: The AP and News Corp DEMAND To Be Paid For Their Content
Re: Re: Reading
Think of the fish and bread vendors!
On the post: Music Publishers, Songwriters To Congress: Our Royalties Should Be Guaranteed, No Matter What The Market Says
Re: Re:
-Sincerely, Joe
On the post: Music Publishers, Songwriters To Congress: Our Royalties Should Be Guaranteed, No Matter What The Market Says
Re: Re: Re:
If only there were some platform to distribute digital media to many people in a cost effective manner. Maybe one that would indicate how many people thought my music was worth sharing, and thus how popular it is.
Why, if I got enough people interested in my music they'd be sharing it with as many people as possible-- my, that would be quite a torrent of bits!
On the post: Once Again, Blocking Ads And Automating Clicks Isn't 'Stealing'
Re:
Just asking.
On the post: Music Publishers, Songwriters To Congress: Our Royalties Should Be Guaranteed, No Matter What The Market Says
Re:
On the post: Music Publishers, Songwriters To Congress: Our Royalties Should Be Guaranteed, No Matter What The Market Says
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then who are you, O Anonymous One? What do you do?
but it you want to consume, there is a price to pay.
I think you are confused about who needs whom. I can make a copy of music for far cheaper than $1.29. Hell, ignoring the overhead costs of my computer and internet connection, I can do it for nearly free! Explain to me again why it costs $1.29 per copy, again?
Musicians should get paid to make music. I agree with this wholeheartedly. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that every time a musician makes music, he or she should get paid. I, however, do not agree that musicians should get paid to make copies of music. I can make copies of music. That cute little girl from the Windows 7 commercials can probably make copies of music. It takes no skill, and no money, so charging for it is a worthless endeavor.
Read this again: Musicians get paid to make music, not for making copies of music.
It's Mike's approach on this to make it sound like musicians and song writers are trying to get something for nothing.
They *are* trying to get something for nothing! How do you not see what it is you are arguing for? With *ZERO* additional work they want to increase, without limit, the money they make. No extra work != more money.
at the end of the day, you are saying "artists don't deserve to get paid for their work".
As I've stated before, an artist should get paid for the act of making music, not for a digital recording of music.
Try again, Mr. I'm-not-a-shill-I-just-play-one-on-the-internet.
On the post: Music Publishers, Songwriters To Congress: Our Royalties Should Be Guaranteed, No Matter What The Market Says
Re: Re: Re:
That's exactly the point, Mr. Shill, that strikes fear in the hearts of so many lazy "artists" who want to keep getting paid for doing absolutely nothing. No one can force us to buy anymore. We have so many other options that circumvent your silly "sell plastic discs" business models that you fear that you might have to get off your collective asses and work again. So you and your Executive Overlords are lobbying fast and hard to apply old laws to new technologies, or worse, to outright eliminate the new technologies. Your fear is not my concern. If any of you had talent, you'd know that the future is with you. However, somewhere along the lines "talent" has been replaced with "marketability". When I can download your entire shitty catalog and make an informed decision to not give you my money, you call it theft. When I can stream your shitty song to my computer for free, you act to apply old rules to that technology to cripple it, if not to outright kill it. *You* are so afraid of having to work like the majority of us that you have resorted to attacking your own fans, who ask only that they get what they want, when they want, how they want for a price they want. Your fans are not the problem, My Shilly friend, it's the people who download your song and decide you are a shitty artist, *that* is who you should be dealing with. Those are your so-called "lost sales", the one who are informed about your complete lack of talent and refuse to fund your "artistic" endeavors.
The standards of being a musician have now been raised. Those without talent need not apply.
Good day, sir/ma'am.
On the post: Peter Sunde Brings Criminal Charges Against BREIN, Claims They Falsified Documents Against The Pirate Bay
Re: Re: Re: Forged docs ok
IIRC, the calibration on that is only good for 6 months. (Less if you drop it on the floor!)
On the post: More Industry Anti-Piracy Propaganda: Former EMI Anti-Piracy Boss Launches 'Educational' Program
Re:
You are confusing "basic human right" with "government granted monopoly"
Try again.
On the post: What To Do When Artists Who Otherwise 'Get It' Freak Out Over 'Piracy'
Re: Re: Re:
But, if he got it, he'd see it as free advertising and, at worst, say nothing and, at best, thank the guy.
Now, putting up a paypal "donate" button seems a little over the line.
On the post: What To Do When Artists Who Otherwise 'Get It' Freak Out Over 'Piracy'
Re:
The post you replied to is correct. If it's digital (and sometimes even if it's not, re:books) then a smart business model (aka one that "gets it") will ASSUME that it will be pirated and leverage that to increase sales of non-scarce goods.
I'm beginning to think that he doesn't "get it" as well as everyone gives him credit for.
On the post: What To Do When Artists Who Otherwise 'Get It' Freak Out Over 'Piracy'
Re:
If I was a nice guy I'd ask an artist who doesn't "get it" if I could put their stuff on bit torrent, but if the artist "gets it" then I'd think he/she'd already be okay with it.
Looks like he didn't get what he thought he got.
PS- I am not a nice guy.
PPS- I have not been paid, or otherwise compensated, for this comment.
On the post: AP Wants To Charge For Scoops
Re: Just You Wait
Whew! Close one, use "/sarcasm" next time, sheesh. :)
On the post: UK Politician's Cross Border Attempt To Terminate Prostitute Review Site Only Bumps Up Traffic
Re: Re: Illegal?
So, what I'm saying that a site based in California that allows you to rate your whore should be perfectly legal because there are places in the world that could (maybe?) utilize such a site. If prostitution were illegal everywhere, then the need for a prostitution site would be.. questionable.
Also, since the in the article that sexist lady for equality (huh?) said that there were reviews for prostitutes *in London* then it would be a good tool to locate those pesky hookers making people happy for money.
Maybe I'm using too many words here?
The bitch is dumb. (and not just for the Terminator jokes, either!)
Next >>