We have torrent trackers being sued out of operation for 'copyright violations,' Google execs in legal jeopardy for a youtube video, etc. Is it really hard to think of a scenario where this guy prevails?
Excellent point, it apparently is making sense under a lot of legal systems, but it really shouldn't make sense if anyone involved cared about the implications of such nonsense.
In fact, this is actually an awful analogy because this is exactly what the newspapers are accusing Google of doing.
I think I missed that part, what exactly are the newspapers accusing Google of? Sending them to the store or selling them a newspaper? Right now Google is sending them to the store. That's ... bad?
Maybe part of the problem surrounding these discussions is the varying definitions of multitasking. I personally take it to mean something more in line with the "email while writing an article" as opposed to "writing 3 articles at once". Or more applicable to my job, "reading an article while writing an application" not "writing 3 applications at once". There's multitasking, and then there's spreading yourself too thin, and I think some of us agree that there's a big difference between the two.
It's a very nice "imaginary story", just a little to close to the reality to call it an analogy. My favorite bit:
At the store, the news exec owner greets visitors by asking them what the hell they want. Perplexed, they visitors say they heard about these stories and wanted to know more. The exec shouts at them. "Get the hell out of my store, you freeloader! This is for members-only. We don't need riff-raff like you in here."
Oh yes, a perfectly reasonable and intelligent reaction.
Copyright "piracy" is the result of your fans reaching you despite your best efforts to drive them away
Well said. This is something that's too infrequently recognized by those failing to grasp all this. The ones that are pirating your music are people that want to listen to your music. They are not enemy combatants in a global war, they are people that for some damn reason like your music, and maybe even you. They are not nameless pirates and evildoers plotting to steal your cattle, they are fans trying to listen to you.
The other half of the answer is that the radio
is good advertising for the product: it pushes the product to listeners in a way that makes them more apt to buy. The goal is not to get the artist widely heard, it's to get the album widely bought. The Internet does not push product. The product just sits there. (emphasis mine)
The Internet does not push product? Yes it requires some effort to get the fire started, but The Internet (by which I mean the billion people on the internet) most certainly does push stuff around, especially when said stuff is easy to push around (unrestricted by DRM and easy/encouraged to send to a friend). Good music spreads, the less friction you put on it the better. And when people are listening to that and like it, they find out who you are. Then, then, you have an opportunity to give them a reason to buy (a very, very good opportunity).
Yes, just sticking it one place and then doing nothing, ever, is a bad strategy, but to say that the internet can't be utilized to push product is just silly.
We don't know the alternative outcomes, but we do know what actions each took and what they said, specifically the "indie" Jamin and Kiowa and the "major" Jim Gianopolous.
(i) Neither intentionally pushed their film(s) out for piracy
(ii) Jamin and Kiowa reacted to the news of piracy by (a) recognizing the exposure it gave and (b) thanking all fans for their support, including those that after viewing the pirated version, came to see it in a theatre.
(iii) Jim Gianopolous reacts by attempting to misinform people "It is important to show them that there is a connection between what they're doing and theft" and "Internet service providers can track down subscribers".
Yeah no problem, they just can, no costs, no worry, they'll just do it magically and always accurately identify what's illegitimate. Oh and it's theft, of course.
In my stated opinion, I think it's pretty clear that recognizing free exposure and thanking your fanbase is smarter than spreading lies. I think spreading lies is dumb, but that's just me, and just my opinion.
Not all comments carry the same weight. Mike's comments quite often drive the conversation a lot more than others. Part of that is the blue box, but not all of it. Were an "executive" to participate in a conversation, noting themselves as who they are and depending on their current level of visibility in the sector the article is relevant too, their comments may also drive the conversation more and increase their visibility/popularity.
I can't think of a specific example, but I imagine there may be some good fits for articles to executives to weigh in on and gain some "street cred", even if its a dissenting opinion.
I'm just going to go ahead and give the benefit of the doubt and assume that is sarcasm. But just in case, for those of you reading this and considering taking that seriously ...
Only those with something to hide will find it objectionable.
This will never be a valid argument. The fallacy of logic is often that the one making the statement does not care about privacy in this specific instance, but does not consider the implications of privacy eroding in instances where they do desire privacy or those individuals who do care about privacy in this specific instance.
As an example, would you mind having an in depth IRS audit every year? Or perhaps having the depths of your hard drive and browser history shown to your local clergyman or grandparent? As one example in this Tiburon situation, the woman who is cheating on the guy whose job it is to cross check some of those license plate numbers. This situation is different, but you have to be very careful when you say things like "nothing to hide, nothing to worry about" because thats not true for everyone in this instance, or for you in other instances.
To answer Derek, what about someone watching the street from a window?
Exactly, the privacy wasn't really there before, but we're heading towards a lot more windows, with a lot more eyes behind those windows (e.g. google street view puts a lot more eyes behind that window). It makes the level of expected privacy lower.
The UK's use of traffic cameras is hardly abuse in my opinion, tracking autos at certain events in an effort to suppress terrorism is hardly the controlling big brother activity that many fear.
I'd argue the exact opposite, tracking an individual and putting them on a watch list because they've exercised their right to protest seems a like a dangerously big brotherish type of activity. I think we have to be very careful where we draw the lines on "its okay to single these people out and punish/watch them because their thoughts and ideas are dangerous".
I've seen too much of 1984 come true already, thought crimes are one of the scariest ones to me, and I'd really appreciate it if I wasn't the only one scared of thought crime becoming a reality. Clearly protest and thoughts are in two entirely different classes, but do you really want to even start down that path? This whole "in the name of suppressing terrorism" thing frightens me.
Most people don't think about roads that way, that may be arguably true but programs like this (and the technology that enables it) are changing our public commons and how we view them.
Today, I can still take a stroll down a street and expect a level of privacy assuming I hear no noise from others walking or cars driving. As technology enables more things like this, that expectation of privacy is changing.
That's something I hadn't even considered with my proposal up there. I guess Apple is "selling" these things on its store. That alone creates a pretty heavy expectation in the customer for supporting the application. I think it has to be assumed that anything labelled "uncertified" or available through the alternate "app mosh pit" channel (or whatever it could be called) can't be sold.
But I think there are ways to remove that customer expectation of support.
If the real goals are the twofold:
(i) Promote good UI/experience
(ii) Prevent Malicious Code
I'd propose a 3 tier system, supported by user ratings:
(a) Certified/Signed applications that have taken the time to go through the rigorous process.
(b) Unsigned applications t.hat are clearly marked to the end user as potentially dangerous
(c) Malware applications that are identified and reviewed as such after they have already been released into the system as Unsigned.
Charge all submissions to the official store still, to finance reviewing/identifying malware. Don't spend time/money identifying good ui / experience, let ratings and marketing and such cover that. Allow everything in immediately as unsigned to promote all the advantages of faster development. There is an increased risk to the users of getting "bad" stuff, but at least it's labelled as such. I don't think this is quite what's being done with android, but it'd be nice to see more gated application communities take an approach along these lines.
I pity them. I really do. Oh, and copyright will be rendered obsolete within the coming decade. No worries.
That's optimistic, but aren't you afraid of another unwinnable war (for copyright)? Perhaps not unlike the war on drugs. There can be casualties along the way towards progress if we let unrealistic laws to be passed, like the 754,224 people arrested last year for marijuana possession.
Now's not the time to sit by idly and say "They're unrealistic, there's no way they can stop it, so let them puff up and talk their talk and pass their laws, it won't matter". They may not be able to stop it, but they can sure as hell hurt a lot of people along the way.
In fact, for most bittorrent users, they upload significantly less than they download.
My correction in bold
You're uploading extremely small pieces, less than notes or beats, to numerous people. Once again, should that be considered infringement?
Has the RIAA focused on Kazaa/Limewire uploaders for that reason? With bittorrent, haven't they gone after trackers and supernodes for linking to infringing files instead? I may be misinformed on who their targets have been, and with what arguements.
Aside from your facetious tone and absurd example, this does actually sound compelling to my laymen senses. Sharing a part of a file with another user through a program designed to compile the entire file could perhaps be construed as participating in a conspiracy to share and compile the entire file.
What proves the intent and conspiracy of the uploader? Is it the way the software being used is designed? Is it the name of the file? Is it the downstream users final action of compiling the file that proves it?
Comedy Central is filling the void of informed journalism. Fox News is filling the (admittedly much larger) need for lowest common denominator pandering and idiocracy.
They may make jokes on both sides of the aisle (always have, and continue to do so), but Jon Stewart does have some clear biases on quite a few issues. I'm not criticizing the show, it's an incredibly valuable resource and I'm incredibly happy that they do the work that they do, but that doesn't change the fact that Stewart has some things he supports, and some he doesn't. Everyone does.
Watch the full Lou Dobbs interview from this week, and pretend for a second that you don't 100% agree with either of them, and see where they stumble upon themselves.
On the post: Shooting Victim Sues Google Over Search Results On His Name
Re: Really?
We have torrent trackers being sued out of operation for 'copyright violations,' Google execs in legal jeopardy for a youtube video, etc. Is it really hard to think of a scenario where this guy prevails?
Excellent point, it apparently is making sense under a lot of legal systems, but it really shouldn't make sense if anyone involved cared about the implications of such nonsense.
On the post: If Google Visitors Are Worthless, It's Only Because Newspaper Execs Don't Know What They're Doing
Re: Re: I like it
In fact, this is actually an awful analogy because this is exactly what the newspapers are accusing Google of doing.
I think I missed that part, what exactly are the newspapers accusing Google of? Sending them to the store or selling them a newspaper? Right now Google is sending them to the store. That's ... bad?
On the post: Multitasking Is Our Main Activity
Re: Apples and Oranges
On the post: If Google Visitors Are Worthless, It's Only Because Newspaper Execs Don't Know What They're Doing
I like it
It's a very nice "imaginary story", just a little to close to the reality to call it an analogy. My favorite bit:
At the store, the news exec owner greets visitors by asking them what the hell they want. Perplexed, they visitors say they heard about these stories and wanted to know more. The exec shouts at them. "Get the hell out of my store, you freeloader! This is for members-only. We don't need riff-raff like you in here."
Oh yes, a perfectly reasonable and intelligent reaction.
On the post: Comparing File Sharing To Payola: Could Have Had That Promotion For Free
Re: free is only bad if you're not getting it
Copyright "piracy" is the result of your fans reaching you despite your best efforts to drive them away
Well said. This is something that's too infrequently recognized by those failing to grasp all this. The ones that are pirating your music are people that want to listen to your music. They are not enemy combatants in a global war, they are people that for some damn reason like your music, and maybe even you. They are not nameless pirates and evildoers plotting to steal your cattle, they are fans trying to listen to you.
On the post: Comparing File Sharing To Payola: Could Have Had That Promotion For Free
Re: Re: radio vs internet
The other half of the answer is that the radio is good advertising for the product: it pushes the product to listeners in a way that makes them more apt to buy. The goal is not to get the artist widely heard, it's to get the album widely bought. The Internet does not push product. The product just sits there. (emphasis mine)
The Internet does not push product? Yes it requires some effort to get the fire started, but The Internet (by which I mean the billion people on the internet) most certainly does push stuff around, especially when said stuff is easy to push around (unrestricted by DRM and easy/encouraged to send to a friend). Good music spreads, the less friction you put on it the better. And when people are listening to that and like it, they find out who you are. Then, then, you have an opportunity to give them a reason to buy (a very, very good opportunity).
Yes, just sticking it one place and then doing nothing, ever, is a bad strategy, but to say that the internet can't be utilized to push product is just silly.
On the post: Heads Of Major Movies Studios Claiming They Just Want To Help Poor Indie Films Harmed By Piracy
Re:
(i) Neither intentionally pushed their film(s) out for piracy
(ii) Jamin and Kiowa reacted to the news of piracy by (a) recognizing the exposure it gave and (b) thanking all fans for their support, including those that after viewing the pirated version, came to see it in a theatre.
(iii) Jim Gianopolous reacts by attempting to misinform people "It is important to show them that there is a connection between what they're doing and theft" and "Internet service providers can track down subscribers".
Yeah no problem, they just can, no costs, no worry, they'll just do it magically and always accurately identify what's illegitimate. Oh and it's theft, of course.
In my stated opinion, I think it's pretty clear that recognizing free exposure and thanking your fanbase is smarter than spreading lies. I think spreading lies is dumb, but that's just me, and just my opinion.
On the post: Dear PR People: If Your Exec Has A Comment, Our Comments Are Open
Re: The real issue?
I can't think of a specific example, but I imagine there may be some good fits for articles to executives to weigh in on and gain some "street cred", even if its a dissenting opinion.
On the post: Tiburon Approves Recording Every Car That Enters/Leaves... Despite More Evidence Of Traffic Camera Abuse In UK
Re:
I'm just going to go ahead and give the benefit of the doubt and assume that is sarcasm. But just in case, for those of you reading this and considering taking that seriously ...
Only those with something to hide will find it objectionable.
This will never be a valid argument. The fallacy of logic is often that the one making the statement does not care about privacy in this specific instance, but does not consider the implications of privacy eroding in instances where they do desire privacy or those individuals who do care about privacy in this specific instance.
As an example, would you mind having an in depth IRS audit every year? Or perhaps having the depths of your hard drive and browser history shown to your local clergyman or grandparent? As one example in this Tiburon situation, the woman who is cheating on the guy whose job it is to cross check some of those license plate numbers. This situation is different, but you have to be very careful when you say things like "nothing to hide, nothing to worry about" because thats not true for everyone in this instance, or for you in other instances.
Suggested Reading
On the post: Tiburon Approves Recording Every Car That Enters/Leaves... Despite More Evidence Of Traffic Camera Abuse In UK
Re: This could be done by humans
To answer Derek, what about someone watching the street from a window?
Exactly, the privacy wasn't really there before, but we're heading towards a lot more windows, with a lot more eyes behind those windows (e.g. google street view puts a lot more eyes behind that window). It makes the level of expected privacy lower.On the post: Tiburon Approves Recording Every Car That Enters/Leaves... Despite More Evidence Of Traffic Camera Abuse In UK
Re: Traffic Camera Abuse
The UK's use of traffic cameras is hardly abuse in my opinion, tracking autos at certain events in an effort to suppress terrorism is hardly the controlling big brother activity that many fear.
I'd argue the exact opposite, tracking an individual and putting them on a watch list because they've exercised their right to protest seems a like a dangerously big brotherish type of activity. I think we have to be very careful where we draw the lines on "its okay to single these people out and punish/watch them because their thoughts and ideas are dangerous".
I've seen too much of 1984 come true already, thought crimes are one of the scariest ones to me, and I'd really appreciate it if I wasn't the only one scared of thought crime becoming a reality. Clearly protest and thoughts are in two entirely different classes, but do you really want to even start down that path? This whole "in the name of suppressing terrorism" thing frightens me.
On the post: Tiburon Approves Recording Every Car That Enters/Leaves... Despite More Evidence Of Traffic Camera Abuse In UK
Re: Rights versus privileges...
Today, I can still take a stroll down a street and expect a level of privacy assuming I hear no noise from others walking or cars driving. As technology enables more things like this, that expectation of privacy is changing.
On the post: iPhone App Developer Backlash Growing
Re:
But I think there are ways to remove that customer expectation of support.
On the post: iPhone App Developer Backlash Growing
A proposal
(i) Promote good UI/experience
(ii) Prevent Malicious Code
I'd propose a 3 tier system, supported by user ratings:
(a) Certified/Signed applications that have taken the time to go through the rigorous process.
(b) Unsigned applications t.hat are clearly marked to the end user as potentially dangerous
(c) Malware applications that are identified and reviewed as such after they have already been released into the system as Unsigned.
Charge all submissions to the official store still, to finance reviewing/identifying malware. Don't spend time/money identifying good ui / experience, let ratings and marketing and such cover that. Allow everything in immediately as unsigned to promote all the advantages of faster development. There is an increased risk to the users of getting "bad" stuff, but at least it's labelled as such. I don't think this is quite what's being done with android, but it'd be nice to see more gated application communities take an approach along these lines.
On the post: Norwegian Band Told It Can't Post Its Own Music To The Pirate Bay, Even Though It Wants To
Re:
I pity them. I really do. Oh, and copyright will be rendered obsolete within the coming decade. No worries.
That's optimistic, but aren't you afraid of another unwinnable war (for copyright)? Perhaps not unlike the war on drugs. There can be casualties along the way towards progress if we let unrealistic laws to be passed, like the 754,224 people arrested last year for marijuana possession.
Now's not the time to sit by idly and say "They're unrealistic, there's no way they can stop it, so let them puff up and talk their talk and pass their laws, it won't matter". They may not be able to stop it, but they can sure as hell hurt a lot of people along the way.
On the post: If You Only Share A Tiny Bit Of A File Via BitTorrent, Is It Still Copyright Infringement?
Re:
In fact, for most bittorrent users, they upload significantly less than they download.
My correction in bold
You're uploading extremely small pieces, less than notes or beats, to numerous people. Once again, should that be considered infringement?
Has the RIAA focused on Kazaa/Limewire uploaders for that reason? With bittorrent, haven't they gone after trackers and supernodes for linking to infringing files instead? I may be misinformed on who their targets have been, and with what arguements.
On the post: If You Only Share A Tiny Bit Of A File Via BitTorrent, Is It Still Copyright Infringement?
Re:
What proves the intent and conspiracy of the uploader? Is it the way the software being used is designed? Is it the name of the file? Is it the downstream users final action of compiling the file that proves it?
On the post: What Does It Say When A Comedy Show Does More Fact Checking Than News Programs?
Re:
On the post: What Does It Say When A Comedy Show Does More Fact Checking Than News Programs?
Re: Point #4?
On the post: What Does It Say When A Comedy Show Does More Fact Checking Than News Programs?
Re: Re: Re:
Watch the full Lou Dobbs interview from this week, and pretend for a second that you don't 100% agree with either of them, and see where they stumble upon themselves.
Next >>