Meanwhile O'Reilly charges almost full price for their epub/mobi pocket files. (Why would I have to pay $30 for a book, for which you haven't had to pay paper, printing, distribution and storage costs, if your dead-tree versions cost $35)
Well, the way copyright is set up nowadays, there is no public domain. You can't release something to the public domain. With CC you can set specific use-cases for your works, and say "you are allowed to do this, this and that with my work, without having to ask for my explicit permission."
Without CC, for every use of your work, people should contact you before using it.
Indeed, you have stated many times that you don't mind if people used your works. But that is shaky legal grounds for someone wanting to use your stuff and you decide to litigate afterall. With CC both parties know where they stand.
Counterpoint:
- How useful is a party called 'The Democratic Party' in a democracy? And are those democrats really for a democracy?
- How useful is a Republican party in an established republic?
I'm glad to hear about a representative of the public actually standing up for the public, instead of caving in to corporate demands.
Also I'm sad that there are so few of those people in public office.
Putting your best work out there doesn't mean putting it out there for free...
You can put a low(er) res/thumbnail version of your best work out there as calling card, and ask money for access to the high res version, for instance.
In the same respect: 'hiding your best work' != 'selling your best work'.
Please read what is being said, and don't jump to conclusions.
It's not necessarily illegal.
Posting news clips on youtube could be legal, if you provide commentary next to it, that's the fair use part. You can comment on the news and add a video clip to that comment.
Re: Re: Re: Is the content all free here? Also record labels still have a place...
She used a Cat Stevens song for her fan appreciation video. Great, and now people use that fact as a blunt weapon to beat this initiative into the ground, and saying: "See, it doesn't work if you use your own stuff."
The labels have rights to the music, indeed, but they ACT as if they own the whole fucking thing.
I'm not debating that labels should be removed from the equation. But labels need to change their role in this. Have them work as the promoters (their original roles) of the artists, and have them help the artists out where the artists are struggling. Such as indeed getting exposure and distribution.
But I don't see how the labels owning rights on the music helps anyone but these labels? It hampers creativity, and it hampers the music industry itself.
And when do those rights expire?
I have little faith in that, as we can see with copyrights in this day and age (70+ years after the death of the rights-owner, but as a corporation technically can't die, basically those rights are locked away forever)
Re: Is the content all free here? Also record labels still have a place...
The content doesn't have to be free for a CwF+RtB=$$$ to work.
Connect with Fans, give them a feeling that they matter for you as an artist.
Reason to Buy, give the fans what they want, like quality music/films/books, and they will give you, the artist, money for your effort. In other words, give the fans a reason to buy your stuff.
Nowhere in this did anyone state that the music should be made free of charge. Yes in a world were goods can be made infinite, the price (according to economic laws) should approach zero. But the other point is that the price is also what people are willing to pay for products. If people are willing to pay $10 for a book, then these people should be able to pay $10 for the book.
As Amanda Palmer explained here, people were willing to PAY for an autographed photo that they were able to get for FREE on her website! Which is the complete opposite than what you started your comment out with.
Indeed, labels have still a place in the CwF+RtB model, as in the promoters or the artists, but not as the content owners. Artists should be the only legal owners of their creative output, not a faceless corporation. Artists should also have the final say in what's going to happen with their works.
Who says that the artists HAVE to give the music away?
With the first: the label owns the music, period. You leave label XYZ, you lose access to the creative works you produced while under label XYZ, so you can't use these works anymore, unless you pay the label a certain amount of money to be able to use the old products of your own creativity for a new project (such as a Best Of-cd).
With the second: the artist still holds all the rights to his or her music, and can still do with it whatever he or she pleases.
Meanwhile the same contracts don't allow artists to keep their music, if they break away from the label (as copyright is most times owned by the label and not by the artist, sometimes even the artists' names aren't owned by them, anyone ever heard of Prince?)
Artists gets pennies on the dollar that the record labels get for music sales.
A lot of the settlement money that they collect in the artists' names, don't actually go to the artist, but to the pockets of the labels.
Yes, labels still have a function even in this day and age, but the maffia practices they have come to rely on for income should stop.
Labels still have a function: as advertisement agencies for artists, nothing more.
But the newspapers I read don't print the show listings of the cinema I go to, probably because that cinema (Metropolis in Antwerp) is in another country, but a lot of people from my area go to that cinema.
Simply because it's the best one in my area, great seats, large screens, large selection of movies because it has 25 theatres, great audio, and no breaks. (hope you don't mind this plug, no I'm not associated with it, just a happy customer, their concession stand is expensive though.)
well it really seems that certain commenters here on the blog are particularly obtuse in understanding the concept of added value in contrast of detracted value.
But I'll try to recap it once again (to help lift the burden on Mike's shoulders of doing so):
Mike&co write news-stories, which are then put in a delayed release-list.
Before Crystal Ball, we had no way of accessing that info earlier, than the release moment of said news-stories. So everyone got access at the same time.
Now, with Crystal Ball, some people (the ones who pay for it) get access to these stories BEFORE they are released to the site. The delay cycle hasn't changed a bit. The stories still are in that queue, and will still be released at the same time that they normally would have before the Crystal Ball existed.
So non-paying visitors still have access to the stories, paying visitors merely get a peek into Masnick's kitchen to see what's brewing in there.
A paywall, which is often mentioned in this case, means, you don't get access at all, unless you pay. This clearly isn't that.
On the post: Forget Software Copyrights And Patents... How About Trade Dress?
I was thinking of dress codes :)
Here I thought one company was freaked out because another company asks their employees to dress the same way. :)
Now that would definitely be rather frivolous. :D
On the post: Publishers Lashing Out At eBooks
And yet...
On the post: Is Creative Commons Bad For Copyright?
Without CC, for every use of your work, people should contact you before using it.
Indeed, you have stated many times that you don't mind if people used your works. But that is shaky legal grounds for someone wanting to use your stuff and you decide to litigate afterall. With CC both parties know where they stand.
On the post: Could The Pirate Party Become A Legitimate Political Force?
- How useful is a party called 'The Democratic Party' in a democracy? And are those democrats really for a democracy?
- How useful is a Republican party in an established republic?
A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.
On the post: Recording Industry Lobbyists Says Politicians Worried About User Rights Are 'Disgusting'?
Glad
Also I'm sad that there are so few of those people in public office.
On the post: Being Unique Is Not The Same As Exclusive (Or Scarce)
Re:
You can put a low(er) res/thumbnail version of your best work out there as calling card, and ask money for access to the high res version, for instance.
In the same respect: 'hiding your best work' != 'selling your best work'.
Please read what is being said, and don't jump to conclusions.
On the post: Reuters Steps Up; Says Linking, Excerpting, Sharing Are Good Things For The News
Re: Reuters is not lying
Posting news clips on youtube could be legal, if you provide commentary next to it, that's the fair use part. You can comment on the news and add a video clip to that comment.
On the post: Amie Street Also Takes Away Features... But At Least Is Honest And Upfront About How They Hate Having To
Re: Re: royalties
On the post: Amanda Palmer Talks About Connecting With Fans: Fans WANT To Support Artists
Re: Re: Re: Is the content all free here? Also record labels still have a place...
The labels have rights to the music, indeed, but they ACT as if they own the whole fucking thing.
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:
But I don't see how the labels owning rights on the music helps anyone but these labels? It hampers creativity, and it hampers the music industry itself.
And when do those rights expire?
I have little faith in that, as we can see with copyrights in this day and age (70+ years after the death of the rights-owner, but as a corporation technically can't die, basically those rights are locked away forever)
On the post: Amanda Palmer Talks About Connecting With Fans: Fans WANT To Support Artists
Re: Is the content all free here? Also record labels still have a place...
Connect with Fans, give them a feeling that they matter for you as an artist.
Reason to Buy, give the fans what they want, like quality music/films/books, and they will give you, the artist, money for your effort. In other words, give the fans a reason to buy your stuff.
Nowhere in this did anyone state that the music should be made free of charge. Yes in a world were goods can be made infinite, the price (according to economic laws) should approach zero. But the other point is that the price is also what people are willing to pay for products. If people are willing to pay $10 for a book, then these people should be able to pay $10 for the book.
As Amanda Palmer explained here, people were willing to PAY for an autographed photo that they were able to get for FREE on her website! Which is the complete opposite than what you started your comment out with.
Indeed, labels have still a place in the CwF+RtB model, as in the promoters or the artists, but not as the content owners. Artists should be the only legal owners of their creative output, not a faceless corporation. Artists should also have the final say in what's going to happen with their works.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Talks About Connecting With Fans: Fans WANT To Support Artists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With the first: the label owns the music, period. You leave label XYZ, you lose access to the creative works you produced while under label XYZ, so you can't use these works anymore, unless you pay the label a certain amount of money to be able to use the old products of your own creativity for a new project (such as a Best Of-cd).
With the second: the artist still holds all the rights to his or her music, and can still do with it whatever he or she pleases.
There is the difference!
On the post: UK Wants Surveillance Cameras To Watch 20,000 Worst Families?
Let's put cameras in the homes of these politicians
And air the highlights of those videos during prime time on television.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Talks About Connecting With Fans: Fans WANT To Support Artists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Artists gets pennies on the dollar that the record labels get for music sales.
A lot of the settlement money that they collect in the artists' names, don't actually go to the artist, but to the pockets of the labels.
Yes, labels still have a function even in this day and age, but the maffia practices they have come to rely on for income should stop.
Labels still have a function: as advertisement agencies for artists, nothing more.
On the post: Copyright Cops Go After Town For Creating Little Mermaid Statue
Re:
On the post: Italian Recording Industry Sues Pirate Bay As Well
[aol]me too[/aol]
First the US, then the Dutch, now the Italians.
On the post: AMC Theatres Pull Movie Listings From Washington Post; Post Hopes Movie Attendance Drops
I do read the movie listings in the newspapers
Simply because it's the best one in my area, great seats, large screens, large selection of movies because it has 25 theatres, great audio, and no breaks. (hope you don't mind this plug, no I'm not associated with it, just a happy customer, their concession stand is expensive though.)
On the post: Company Claims Patent On Pretty Much All Podcasting
Dave Winer did it first.
http://www.thetwowayweb.com/payloadsForRss
He tweeted about it earlier today:
http://twitter.com/davewiner/status/2912174161 (on this news story)
and
http://twitter.com/davewiner/status/2912205012 (on his first description of what would later be known as podcasting)
This patent once again proves that the whole system is broken.
On the post: Is The NY Times Looking To CwF + RtB?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think the delay works very nicely.
BTW, before the Crystal Ball, did you ever notice the delay?
On the post: Is The NY Times Looking To CwF + RtB?
Re: Re:
But I'll try to recap it once again (to help lift the burden on Mike's shoulders of doing so):
Mike&co write news-stories, which are then put in a delayed release-list.
Before Crystal Ball, we had no way of accessing that info earlier, than the release moment of said news-stories. So everyone got access at the same time.
Now, with Crystal Ball, some people (the ones who pay for it) get access to these stories BEFORE they are released to the site. The delay cycle hasn't changed a bit. The stories still are in that queue, and will still be released at the same time that they normally would have before the Crystal Ball existed.
So non-paying visitors still have access to the stories, paying visitors merely get a peek into Masnick's kitchen to see what's brewing in there.
A paywall, which is often mentioned in this case, means, you don't get access at all, unless you pay. This clearly isn't that.
Next >>