Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 3:56pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unlike your two year old, I have all the power here. I can choose to give you my money, or not. Here are the possible futures:
1) Offer your products at a price I'm willing to pay. I give you money, you get my money. You win, I win.
2) Status quo. You can't stop piracy. You keep offering bad products and charging too much. I keep pirating. I keep my money. I win, you lose.
3) The laws you pass destroy the Internet. Our economy ends up looking like Zimbabwe's. Everyone loses, especially you.
4) By some incredibly unlikely miracle, you stop piracy with draconian laws without destroying the Internet and the economy. But you still charge too much and offer bad products. I still keep my money, or give it to someone who isn't you. I don't get your content, but you still don't get my money.
What other possibility is there?
Oh, and a basic business concept for you: If you have to cut your price in half to double your market, you haven't netted the same amount of money, you lost (because your marginal costs per unit remain about the same, your net is based on half the income).
Fact you still haven't come to terms with:
Marginal cost of a digital item is zero. If you cut your price in half, and double your sales, you make more money.
Remember also: market isn't infinite.
It doesn't need to be infinite to double, triple, or ten-fold increase your profits. Economic growth comes from expanding your market. Not destroying it by pissing off your customers or potential customers.
There is no indication that dropping a price significantly would suddenly create a doubling of the market place.
If you can actually say that with a straight face, you are completely delusional. There are a staggering amount of examples that show it. Everything from music, movies, books, games, both with physical products and digital.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 1:15pm
Re: Re: Re:
Tell me this, Mike. What would be an effective way to combat online piracy that you would approve of?
I think you've missed the hundreds (maybe thousands) of Techdirt posts where Mike has already answered that question. (How you managed to comment on those posts without reading them is still a mystery that science has yet to answer.)
You combat piracy by giving people a reason to buy, offering goods and services that they want that are convenient and reasonably priced. Basically everything the legacy industries can't seem to do.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 26 Oct 2011 @ 6:50pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Jeff, if you don't like the terms, don't buy it.
Bingo. If I don't like the terms, I don't have to buy. And I won't. But I'll still get what I want, legally or not.
However, remember that just not liking the terms doesn't give you the right to just take a copy. If you can't find justification for paying the market price, then just don't watch the movie. Just move along.
No.
And you still don't get it. You can throw all the legal arguments at me you want. You can say "rights" until you're blue in the face. I don't need to justify breaking a law which is morally and ethically wrong. A law which is supported by ethically bankrupt corporations. And which those corporations continue to lobby to make even "wronger" and in doing so continue to corrupt our political process.
And yet, if I were to offer a justification for doing so, here is it is: The fact is that I have neither stolen anything, nor deprived any person in the world of a single penny, by making a copy of something in which I would not have paid for at the price they have offered it legally.
You mean that the studio should somehow be bound to sell the content at a loss,
No one said they should sell it at a loss. While there would be some moderate up front investment for setting up a simple, easy, solution to sell high quality, DRM free file downloads or streaming services, it sure is a hell of a lot cheaper than the DRM encrusted broken pieces of shit they keep coming out with.
People like me would be willing to buy a good quality DRM-free movie download at the time of theater release for $5-$10, and episodes of our favorite TV shows for $1-$2 on the night they originally air. And the studios would be making money hand over fist, because they'd be increasing their customer base 10- or 20-fold. But they're too stupid for that, apparently.
Also, the studios have exactly zero credibility when when they say they would be selling at a loss, when it appears that nearly every film made in the past few decades still has yet to show a profit on the books.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 24 Oct 2011 @ 12:48pm
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Given that the photo above shows that it's possible for anyone with an alternate access point to the Internet can see the content that's being filtered,
So that means it's perfectly fine and constitutional to shut down NewspaperA as long as you can still publish in NewspaperB?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Oct 2011 @ 10:06am
Re: Re: Re:
I think you could address a lot of this by cutting down on the sheer cost of getting something to market.
How about we first get rid of patents, then. Then we no longer need to pay for and waste time with patents and the scumbag lawyers writing and suing over them.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Oct 2011 @ 9:58am
Re: Craigslist?
Ah, found it. Looks like if you buy or sell basically anything more than once per month, you qualify. Maybe it doesn't make everyone a criminal, but close.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Oct 2011 @ 2:59am
Re: Re:
Because of the nature of her claim, IF she wins in a court of law and IMDB has to withdraw her age from their site, then it would all be in vain if she took them to court using her real name.
It no longer matters whether she wins or loses, her "secret" is out. As a direct result of the case, there are at least a few people keeping tabs on all the profiles of 40-something Asian actresses. If she wins and her IMDB profile is updated, someone will notice and she's outed.
While I don't have any direct evidence to support it
Thank you, that's what I was looking for.
Go find some evidence, then we'll listen.
Isn't it odd that after years of slagging off all sorts of middlemen as parasites, the very programs he seems to support are keyed towards putting Mike and the companies her work with exactly in the middle of all these transactions?
I may be wrong (if I am, please provide links, thanks), but I don't think Mike has ever slammed anyone only for being a middleman. Nor has he ever slammed anyone for taking a "fair" cut for the valuable services they added.
What he has slammed many middlemen with, repeatedly, are actions that show those that are parasites. The ones who do not add any value. The ones who take hugely disproportionate cuts for their services. The ones who in fact, end up costing artists, and their customers time, money, and goodwill.
So, until I see evidence to the contrary, you're full of shit.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Oct 2011 @ 9:48am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the players involved are all do business with Mike, Do you honestly think he would post anything but praise for programs offered by people he recently signed business deals with?
Their business deals are a fact (see step two for details) and we know that Mike has a good relationship with Google (and has used their facilities in the past).
There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with making a profit, either for Mike, or the ones doing business with him.
It is not wrong to promote something which you have a profit motive for. It's called marketing. There's nothing wrong with marketing, unless you're lying or misrepresenting what you're promoting.
Do you have even a shred of evidence that Mike is misrepesenting anything?
So why do you think this story isn't even slightly leaning towards rah-rah support of the people that help to pay his bills?
I never said it wasn't leaning one direction. Mike has made it perfectly clear that Techdirt is an opinion blog (among other things). But just because a post leans one direction or advocates one side of an issue doesn't make it wrong. Just because there are two (or more) sides of an issue doesn't mean those sides have equal evidence in support of their positions. Sometimes the truth can be in the middle - other times one side is flat out wrong.
So again, I'll ask, do you have the slightest shred of evidence that Mike is lying about something? If so, please present it.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Oct 2011 @ 9:09am
Once you start to understand how our modern devices work and how they're created, it's impossible to not be dizzy about the depth of everything that's involved, and to not be in awe about the fact that they work at all
^This. A thousand times this.
Back when I worked tech support, one thing I'd say to users to calm them down when they started to complain was this:
You have a computer. Inside that computer are a dozen different parts, all made by different companies. But wait, each of those parts is actually made out of dozens or even hundreds of different components, also made by dozens of different companies. You put all that together, and you still have nothing useful. You then need to add an operating system made of millions of lines of code. Oh, and hundreds of drivers made by hardware companies. Even after that, you still can't do anything useful. For that you need applications and programs, and guess what, most of those are written by a new set of thousands of different companies.
It is truly amazing that it works at all. So how does it?
the reason why it works is because you have all these different complex pieces working together with different experts focused on specialized pieces within the stack.
Exactly. You have to trust other players to do their part, so you can do yours. And then to put it all together, you need standards. Things like to OSI layers. Hardware standards like PCI, IDE, VGA. Networking standards like DNS. Operating system APIs.
Imagine if 40 years ago, someone had patented the concept of OSI layers. Or object-oriented programming. Or any one of hundreds of ideas that are the foundations of nearly all technology we take for granted today. We'd be living in a very different world, and it would be much, much worse.
And that's why all the IP lawyers who are about to argue that patents are somehow necessary are completely and utterly wrong. Patents prevent standards. Patents prevent you from trusting that someone else on their level of the stack is trying to work with you to do something good.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Oct 2011 @ 7:32am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's too bad. You seem intelligent, but you seem also unable to get past your own bias.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Is it intelligent to ignore every bit of helpful advice being given by people who understand economics and technology? Is it intelligent to ignore all the evidence and studies that show that copyright infringement isn't a problem? Is it intelligent to continue digging your own grave deeper by intentional pissing off your best customers? Is it intelligent to force "your" artists into hugely one-sided deals that also piss them off?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Oct 2011 @ 7:09am
Re:
For an unlimited time only, you can give me your money under the illusion that your Sinsurance will protect you from guilt, lawsuits, and eternal damnation!
Have you purchased a license to this idea from the Catholic Church? They beat you by a few hundred years:
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 9:19am
Re:
It seems like the anti-copyright types Admit That They Have No Evidence
Once again, I am amazed at the reality distortion field that surrounds you.
How can you comment on nearly every story posted at Techdirt, many of which contain said evidence, argue against that evidence, and yet somehow think that the evidence doesn't exist?
On the post: High Prices, Lack Of Availability Driving Lots Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) Offer your products at a price I'm willing to pay. I give you money, you get my money. You win, I win.
2) Status quo. You can't stop piracy. You keep offering bad products and charging too much. I keep pirating. I keep my money. I win, you lose.
3) The laws you pass destroy the Internet. Our economy ends up looking like Zimbabwe's. Everyone loses, especially you.
4) By some incredibly unlikely miracle, you stop piracy with draconian laws without destroying the Internet and the economy. But you still charge too much and offer bad products. I still keep my money, or give it to someone who isn't you. I don't get your content, but you still don't get my money.
What other possibility is there?
Oh, and a basic business concept for you: If you have to cut your price in half to double your market, you haven't netted the same amount of money, you lost (because your marginal costs per unit remain about the same, your net is based on half the income).
Fact you still haven't come to terms with:
Marginal cost of a digital item is zero. If you cut your price in half, and double your sales, you make more money.
Remember also: market isn't infinite.
It doesn't need to be infinite to double, triple, or ten-fold increase your profits. Economic growth comes from expanding your market. Not destroying it by pissing off your customers or potential customers.
There is no indication that dropping a price significantly would suddenly create a doubling of the market place.
If you can actually say that with a straight face, you are completely delusional. There are a staggering amount of examples that show it. Everything from music, movies, books, games, both with physical products and digital.
On the post: E-PARASITE's Sponsor, Lamar Smith, Was Against Massive Regulatory Compliance The Day Before He's For It
Re: Re: Re:
I think you've missed the hundreds (maybe thousands) of Techdirt posts where Mike has already answered that question. (How you managed to comment on those posts without reading them is still a mystery that science has yet to answer.)
You combat piracy by giving people a reason to buy, offering goods and services that they want that are convenient and reasonably priced. Basically everything the legacy industries can't seem to do.
On the post: High Prices, Lack Of Availability Driving Lots Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bingo. If I don't like the terms, I don't have to buy. And I won't. But I'll still get what I want, legally or not.
However, remember that just not liking the terms doesn't give you the right to just take a copy. If you can't find justification for paying the market price, then just don't watch the movie. Just move along.
No.
And you still don't get it. You can throw all the legal arguments at me you want. You can say "rights" until you're blue in the face. I don't need to justify breaking a law which is morally and ethically wrong. A law which is supported by ethically bankrupt corporations. And which those corporations continue to lobby to make even "wronger" and in doing so continue to corrupt our political process.
And yet, if I were to offer a justification for doing so, here is it is: The fact is that I have neither stolen anything, nor deprived any person in the world of a single penny, by making a copy of something in which I would not have paid for at the price they have offered it legally.
You mean that the studio should somehow be bound to sell the content at a loss,
No one said they should sell it at a loss. While there would be some moderate up front investment for setting up a simple, easy, solution to sell high quality, DRM free file downloads or streaming services, it sure is a hell of a lot cheaper than the DRM encrusted broken pieces of shit they keep coming out with.
People like me would be willing to buy a good quality DRM-free movie download at the time of theater release for $5-$10, and episodes of our favorite TV shows for $1-$2 on the night they originally air. And the studios would be making money hand over fist, because they'd be increasing their customer base 10- or 20-fold. But they're too stupid for that, apparently.
Also, the studios have exactly zero credibility when when they say they would be selling at a loss, when it appears that nearly every film made in the past few decades still has yet to show a profit on the books.
On the post: High Prices, Lack Of Availability Driving Lots Of Infringement
Re: Re:
You're ignoring the entire point of the article, as usual.
Is that availability both convenient and reasonably priced?
No, it is not.
On the post: Justice Department Wants To Be Able To Lie In Response To Freedom Of Information Requests
Re:
Find the best candidate and vote for them. If they aren't on the ticket, write them in.
On the post: Amtrak Lets You Surf The Web While Traveling, But Don't Try To Read Anything About Gay People
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So that means it's perfectly fine and constitutional to shut down NewspaperA as long as you can still publish in NewspaperB?
Try again.
On the post: State Department Pulls Top Secret Security Clearance From Diplomat Who Linked To Publicly Available Info
Re: He Broke the Rules
Yes, all those rules that the government never breaks, except exactly when it suits them.
On the post: Europe Says Stem Cells Are Not Patentable; Confused Scientists Freak Out
Re: Re: Re:
How about we first get rid of patents, then. Then we no longer need to pay for and waste time with patents and the scumbag lawyers writing and suing over them.
On the post: Louisiana Makes It Illegal To Use Cash For Secondhand Sales
Re: Craigslist?
Yard sales would also seem to qualify.
On the post: Louisiana Makes It Illegal To Use Cash For Secondhand Sales
Craigslist?
If not, anyone trying to get rid of junk in the for sale section just became a criminal.
On the post: Actress Sues Amazon Because Her Age Appeared On Her IMDB Profile
Re: Re:
It no longer matters whether she wins or loses, her "secret" is out. As a direct result of the case, there are at least a few people keeping tabs on all the profiles of 40-something Asian actresses. If she wins and her IMDB profile is updated, someone will notice and she's outed.
On the post: YouTube Now Helping Artists Sell The Scarce
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you, that's what I was looking for.
Go find some evidence, then we'll listen.
Isn't it odd that after years of slagging off all sorts of middlemen as parasites, the very programs he seems to support are keyed towards putting Mike and the companies her work with exactly in the middle of all these transactions?
I may be wrong (if I am, please provide links, thanks), but I don't think Mike has ever slammed anyone only for being a middleman. Nor has he ever slammed anyone for taking a "fair" cut for the valuable services they added.
What he has slammed many middlemen with, repeatedly, are actions that show those that are parasites. The ones who do not add any value. The ones who take hugely disproportionate cuts for their services. The ones who in fact, end up costing artists, and their customers time, money, and goodwill.
So, until I see evidence to the contrary, you're full of shit.
On the post: YouTube Now Helping Artists Sell The Scarce
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Their business deals are a fact (see step two for details) and we know that Mike has a good relationship with Google (and has used their facilities in the past).
There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with making a profit, either for Mike, or the ones doing business with him.
It is not wrong to promote something which you have a profit motive for. It's called marketing. There's nothing wrong with marketing, unless you're lying or misrepresenting what you're promoting.
Do you have even a shred of evidence that Mike is misrepesenting anything?
So why do you think this story isn't even slightly leaning towards rah-rah support of the people that help to pay his bills?
I never said it wasn't leaning one direction. Mike has made it perfectly clear that Techdirt is an opinion blog (among other things). But just because a post leans one direction or advocates one side of an issue doesn't make it wrong. Just because there are two (or more) sides of an issue doesn't mean those sides have equal evidence in support of their positions. Sometimes the truth can be in the middle - other times one side is flat out wrong.
So again, I'll ask, do you have the slightest shred of evidence that Mike is lying about something? If so, please present it.
On the post: YouTube Now Helping Artists Sell The Scarce
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you can actually bring relevant information, facts, and evidence to this discussion, I will certainly consider it.
If I sidestep or brush it off without adequate consideration, I'll donate $50 to the charity of your choice.
So, please point to your sources and evidence, or else stop complaining that everyone keeps calling you out when you don't.
On the post: Complexity, Why Steve Jobs Got More Coverage Than Dennis Ritchie... And What That Says About The Patent System
^This. A thousand times this.
Back when I worked tech support, one thing I'd say to users to calm them down when they started to complain was this:
You have a computer. Inside that computer are a dozen different parts, all made by different companies. But wait, each of those parts is actually made out of dozens or even hundreds of different components, also made by dozens of different companies. You put all that together, and you still have nothing useful. You then need to add an operating system made of millions of lines of code. Oh, and hundreds of drivers made by hardware companies. Even after that, you still can't do anything useful. For that you need applications and programs, and guess what, most of those are written by a new set of thousands of different companies.
It is truly amazing that it works at all. So how does it?
the reason why it works is because you have all these different complex pieces working together with different experts focused on specialized pieces within the stack.
Exactly. You have to trust other players to do their part, so you can do yours. And then to put it all together, you need standards. Things like to OSI layers. Hardware standards like PCI, IDE, VGA. Networking standards like DNS. Operating system APIs.
Imagine if 40 years ago, someone had patented the concept of OSI layers. Or object-oriented programming. Or any one of hundreds of ideas that are the foundations of nearly all technology we take for granted today. We'd be living in a very different world, and it would be much, much worse.
And that's why all the IP lawyers who are about to argue that patents are somehow necessary are completely and utterly wrong. Patents prevent standards. Patents prevent you from trusting that someone else on their level of the stack is trying to work with you to do something good.
On the post: Righthaven Still Trying To Avoid Paying Any Legal Fees Of Those It Illegally Sued
Re:
On the post: YouTube Now Helping Artists Sell The Scarce
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Is it intelligent to ignore every bit of helpful advice being given by people who understand economics and technology? Is it intelligent to ignore all the evidence and studies that show that copyright infringement isn't a problem? Is it intelligent to continue digging your own grave deeper by intentional pissing off your best customers? Is it intelligent to force "your" artists into hugely one-sided deals that also piss them off?
On the post: Mass Infringement Lawyer Complains About Too Many People Challenging His Lawsuits
Re:
On the post: Mass Infringement Lawyer Complains About Too Many People Challenging His Lawsuits
Re:
Have you purchased a license to this idea from the Catholic Church? They beat you by a few hundred years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgences
On the post: UK Government Admits That It Has No Evidence (Zip, Zilch, Zero) To Support Its Claims For Draconian Copyright Law
Re:
Once again, I am amazed at the reality distortion field that surrounds you.
How can you comment on nearly every story posted at Techdirt, many of which contain said evidence, argue against that evidence, and yet somehow think that the evidence doesn't exist?
Next >>