It's actually what's happening OUTSIDE the market, Mike. That's the complication. Should legitimate business embrace the black market? That's not a new question, but now the scale is massive and it's actually damaging to the legitimate market. Very different than just another evolutionary nuance within the legitimate market.
"But I'd argue you're confusing a mix of economic proof, datapoints *mixed* with *some* theory as "just theory." And then you're using that to brush off the proof and the data."
Possibly, but your "proof" and your datapoints are often soooo niche, limited to a specific content producer with a specific product, that it is simply untenable to extrapolate that to businesses as a whole within that industry, much less beyond it. If I brush off anything it's as a result of this rather than not understanding the evidence provided. As I've said many times before, the issue of scale is too often ignored when it is really, really meaningful.
"It's an incredibly accurate word. You have not yet shown why it is not, though it appears to have set off quite an emotional response in you. Try to dial down the emotion and think about it rationally."
Oh Mike. This is both funny and sad. It's funny because you very specifically and surgically failed to address my specific comment about words you used when responding to my prior post ("upset" and "worked-up") which better describe your response than my post. It's sad because this is an obvious literary device intended to belittle the point of one debater. The truth is that it really points to your emotionality and your frustration with either 1) your weak points or 2) your audience, both of which are troublesome for you, not me. For someone who likes to give the appearance of a dispassionate intellectual, you dive into these emotional assumptions and reactions regularly. Seriously, check yourself, Mike.
"I never said otherwise. I have said that many of them are going about it the wrong way. Some are doing a much better job than others, and I've been quick to celebrate those doing smart things as well. You seem to think I've said that they're all dinosaurs. That's not true. But when one is doing something that will harm it, I'm going to say it."
Okay. You may intend things that way, but your writing comes off differently at least to me. Most of what you rail against is big business and whole industries (which you conveniently homogenize). Most of what you celebrate is niche plays (you call them "business models") by minor actors. I guess I can recall you calling out a big business once or twice for something positive on the IP front, but it's rare.
"Because we've seen over and over and over again that the ones who fight it rather than embracing the new opportunities head on are the ones that LOSE on the flip side. Must we go through a history lesson? The ones who say that "we'll wait until the business model is proven" discover that those who prove the business model are the ones who win."
I agree that some of those business that wait will be irreparably harmed. But many will NOT. Many will be just fine waiting a beat, letting others take the first leap and then using their scale, content, distribution channels, whatever to come on strong, adopt the alternative and do just fine. THIS has been shown time and time again, as well. Business can be about being first to market, but it's more often about being best to market with a sustainable model (by which I mean an actual comprehensive business model, not what is thrown around here). Your writing seems not to recognize this. First and quickest seems to trump everything in your business world. That is sometimes true. But not nearly always.
"Consumer entitlement is a given in the marketplace. Business entitlement is a legal issue and an abuse of process. You can't do much about the first, but the second is pretty close to fraud and damaging for society. Get over it and focus on how to succeed given the first."
Consumer entitlement up to the point of illegality, yes. The problem is that the legal market for content is now being driven by illegal activity. That's a huge complication that makes the economics more difficult to understand and predict. Legitimate business have to work within the law. At least by your apparent definition, consumers do not. That's a major problem.
As for your comment (at least as I read it) that businesses asserting their rights constitute "pretty close to fraud" I just say: wow. Firstly, I bet what's in your head are those very FEW (by both number and percentage when we talk about tens of millions of pieces of content and IP out there every year) examples of businesses pushing the limits, falsely claiming copyright, suing people and such. Those are the exceptions not the rule. As you say, "get over it" and stop using the emotionality of those exceptions as a crutch. And as for damaging society, that's a big, big statement, one which does not seem to factor in the benefits that these businesses also bring to the table (presently and historically). And please don't just limit any examples to the music or entertainment industry groups...this subject is much broader than that and you know it.
Mike, it's very odd that you often choose to personalize your posts by using terms just as "upset" and "worked up." You interpret way too much. This is just fun and interesting, not visceral and surely not personal. But I think your choice of words - as consistent as it is - is revealing. Anywho....
"I don't see how it's controversial to suggest that companies unwilling to change their business model may find difficulty staying in business."
No, what you do is describe them as stupid, fascist, archaic, etc., etc. The fact is that most of the business you rail against are still eminently profitable, while the "models" you support are not, or not yet, or not by much. Do I see the market changing? Certainly. But do I (or you) have special powers to know where it is going better than anyone else? Surely not. You have your theories, some well-founded, some not so. Others have theirs, some well-founded, some not so. I enjoy absorbing and reacting to many of them. Welcome.
In this post, YOU chose to use the intellectually loaded term "entitlement." That's your word. Entitlement has a whole lot of baggage as a political, economic and social term and it has clear moral and ethical entanglement.
"...unwillingness to change their business model in the face of competition -- AND THEN to insist that THE MARKET NOT CHANGE either through public pressure or through legal changes is very much entitlement."
Actually, likely not. Many of the businesses you rail against are not nearly as static as you assume (or accuse). In fact, especially in the media and publishing spaces, many companies (I am directly familiar with several large ones) are DESPERATELY working on new approaches to their markets and establishing alternative relationships with consumers. They are extremely interested in exploring new paths for revenue. But the fact is that most of them are profitable NOW, so they can't screw the pooch. The have to make sure they move from one solid footing to another. This is where the oft-ignored concept of scale kicks in: what 10 guys in a garage can tolerate in terms of risk, change rate and uncertainty is very, very different than a Fortune 1000 company.
Your view of these companies as static dinosaurs leads you to view them as (WARNING: loaded term coming!) acting entitled. In fact, protection of their existing markets and approaches is part of an extremely predictable and largely reasonable protectionism which most businesses engage in when under stress. They defend their old markets and methods until new ones are solidified. Businesses rarely evolve without a fight or overnight. While there are exceptions, why would a 20 or 50 or 100 year old business drive itself into the ground over defending a business "model" that doesn't work....simple reality is that MOST won't, or won't knowingly. Why would they? Some will do fail to change (or fail to change quick enough) and die off, be acquired or lose their marketshare. But many will adapt, over time, after a struggle.
Please note that I'm speaking of businesses, not an "industry." Industries themselves are rarely monolithic and no not have the fiduciary responsibilities of an individual business, nor other pressures. They are NOT equivalent.
As for confusing terms, I have no confusion. I was giving another (better, I feel) entitlement example which involves consumers. You are relating one entitlement to the other...I am not (or at least did not intend that thread).
I agree that you typically don't defend, but you spend an immense amount of time attempting to justify and describe these activities as basically inevitable and worthy of nothing less than full embrace.
And given that the vast majority of those grabbing free content daily are doing so just for the free content, not as a political statement, it cannot be ignored. To re-use your words, you are "so blinded" by the intellectual exercise of your over-philosophized stances that you cannot see that most of the infringers (thieves, pirates, civil disobedients, whatever) just want free stuff and could give two hoots about IP reform or your micro-niche examples of go-to-market strategies which you insist on calling "business models." You're trying to build a foundation under a very shaky house, hoping the inspectors don't catch you and architects don't laugh.
Where is anyone getting the idea that Hulu is profitable and self-sustaining? I'd love to see definitive links that contain anything other than blogger guesses. (Here's a quick synopsis and analysis of those blogger guesses that appeared vocally late last year: http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/11/hulu-profitable-please ) I'm vaguely in the media world and have heard of little but struggle and consternation among those involved with Hulu with regard to how to monetize. And even if Hulu pulls a real or theoretical gross margin, one calculation not done is how much viewership (and, therefore, ad revenue) it diverts from the broadcast networks to begin with.
To be clear, I think Hulu has a lot of promise, but the state of digital advertising is largely abysmal and makes it difficult to sustain businesses which are expensive to operate, at least as a sole means of support. I hope they can figure it out, as the convenience and quality (not to mention legality) is great!
A "legal battle with any kind of intellectual integrity." No idea what this means, but it sounds like a scenario, where "intellectual integrity" really means something like "with an outcome I agree with." The fact is there are regular and sometimes epic legal battles to distinguish these things exactly, and have been for many generations. Are they overwrought, expensive and sometimes engaged in slicing shades of gray, and occasionally unfair? Yes. But slicing shades of gray is one of the primary uses and purposes of the modern legal system the world over, whether it's an IP question, the question of intent as it relates to crimes, etc., etc. Does "legal integrity" equate to "intellectual integrity?" Perhaps not in all cases, but it's legal integrity that actually matters on an applied basis. I'm all for reforming the legal system to be more equitable, modern and realistic (which I guess, collectively, would swerve toward improved "intellectual integrity"), but the law and the legal system are what we have to work with and through. Everything else is pretty much a hypothetical battle of religion, philosophy and theory, otherwise termed a TechDirt pseduo-reality.
Amen. This is the same concern I have articulated (not as well as you) about the free "business models" (which aren't business models) that Mike espouses. The details of what should be are scant, fragmentary, sometimes based on micro-niche examples and often stated in the negative. Over philosophized pronouncements that ignore ambiguity and ignore the practical realities that most cultural members can intuit are not very useful to create actual solutions which can be applied in this plane of existence, on this planet.
Mike, wow. Just wow. Firstly, it's good to see someone who likes to overuse and misuse the term "insult" just like you do. Second, your comment that "it's yet another sign of the entitlement culture, where some seem to assume they're entitled to keep their business model" is just amazing. How dare YOU insist that any legally operating business change its business model?!? That a business chooses to approach the market in a give way is their decision. It's not an entitlement, it s a go-to-market strategy (or what TechDirt seems to call a "business model"). Within the bounds of the law, business ARE entitled to approach their perceived market however they like, and at their own peril. As for the sense of entitlement, there is none moreso that the continued desire by many folks to just get at no cost those things that legally cost money. The over-philosophized theories here notwithstanding, there are a whole lotta freeloaders out there just gobbling up as much content as they can, knowing it is currently illegal to do so, and not bothering to loop back to make a legitimate purchase to compensate the content producer. You can cite studies, I'm sure, that some percentage of the Free Stuffers do pay/might pay/would pay...fine. But intuitively and based on practical experience and observation, we all know what's going on out there once the philosophical robes are shed. THIS is the dirty sense of entitlement. And it is just as bad and wrong-headed as the endless extension of copyright and IP protections ad infinitum. These stances are the ends of the pendulum swing...reality, fairness and equitability are in the middle.
"Correlation, not causation." Yes, Mike, we agree. @Reed is saying that all IP law needs to be chucked. My point is that even with IP protections, creativity and inventiveness increased dramatically, so the rpesime that dramatic growth in creative output can't happen with IP protections in place is wrong. YOU are the one who introduced the nuance of stronger versus weaker protections. @Reed's argument was all or nothing. I agree with you that there are shades involved here that need to be factored in and have different causal and correlative results.
"Did you know back in the days when you had to register for copyright how many authors actually did? The %s are incredibly low. Most knew they didn't need (c)." Really, is that the reason they didn't apply for copyright? Are you basing that assessment of their individual reasoning on interviews with these multi-generationally dead authors in statistically significant numbers? Or is it just your hopeful assumption, Mike? I'd bet that a material factor was that many authors didn't know HOW to apply for the protection or that such protection was even available to them. For the US, back in the day when government wasn't all-encompassing, people could go nearly their entire lives without interacting with anything other than their local township. That lasted quite a ways into the 20th century, with the Depression or WWII usually cited the watershed moments when that changed for many (but not nearly all or even a majority) of people. That the esoteric process for sending your materials to the LoC or USPTO wasn't known by most Americans for most of the existence of the country is ENTIRELY believable.
"I love this line. It's based on nothing, and credits all sorts of works with "relying on IP" even if it really doesn't. It's the biggest lie the copyright/patent industry loves to spew." Educate me. And not by guessing at what COULD be, or citing endless industry-specific mico-examples all from within the last 6 months, but explain to me how this is a fallacy today, with business models actually in use from mom and pops to Fortune 500. And I didn't use the word "relying" I said "tied up" meaning involved with, affected by, acting for/against, benefiting from directly/indirectly. My mind is truly open, Mike.
Love the idealism, but I don't think it's grounded in human history or nature. I agree that reform is necessary and right. But the FACT is that since copyright and IP laws have been established,the pace of both technology innovation and artistic creation has exploded. We went from riding horses to a man on the moon in 70 years WITH copyright and IP protections. The average lifespan for humans has nearly DOUBLED during that same time! More movies and works of art and books are published every year than were published in whole decades at the beginning of the 20th century. I contend that a good part of the reason for that are the compensation and recognition motives. These protections allow individuals and companies to more easily make a living based upon their creativity. They are not ASSURED of a living, but the protections help them make one for works that gain some kind of currency in the marketplace. For the flamers, of course it's not the only way a content producer can make a living, there are many add-ons, ecosystem plays, etc, etc. But copyright and IP laws at their essence have allowed individuals and companies to FOCUS on creativity and invention as a primary effort, rather than a sideline.
Just because some individuals, companies and organizations are trying to push the envelope far beyond what is reasonable and right does not mean, in my opinion, that we trash the entire system and concept, nor does it mean that all of humanity is forgoing some kind of revolutionary renaissance as a result. IP and copyright ain't just about music and movies...a goodly portion of the entire global economy (and billions of livelihoods) are tied up in it. What might work for publishing or gaming, might not work at all for pharma or manufacturing, so reform has to be done carefully.
I *think* you said that people are sick of being inundated with patronizing marketing, tugging and over-tugged strings and pressing over-pressed buttons. Totally agree with that. I think you also said that rich people are smart enough to see through this. Not so sure that affluence directly indicates consumer smarts. I know a lot of people in the "more money than brains crowd" that are among the most easily taken. I do think that consumer savvy in these things has exploded, which is good. But it has little to do with affluence.
And my god, man, your prose is 10 feet thick! Good for you, I guess. :)
Mike's rule: "Anything free is good, everything pay is bad." Just jooooking. :-)
But seriously, I thought I had read so many downloaders right here on TechDirt writing that they religiously compensate content producers for their work if they like it. If that's the case, all the rest of this is noise, because they would make money on just the book, if it's good and if they can download it for free, right?
To further ruin Mike's day, this critic will agree that this is a good example of well-articulated value adds that entice casual fans and non-fans to take a leap, especially if word-of-mouth is good. And it increases fan "stickiness" and mindshare, which is good for any content producer. My only critique of the post is the categorization of the story in the "now-this-is-unique." Fully realized, sure. But not unique. Novelty incentives go back to the earliest days of trade, and are certainly nothing new with books, music or movies. I bought a Clint Eastwood Dirty Harry box set a bit ago that had all sorts of inserts in an "evidence kit," additional interviews and add-ons, and links to "exclusive" web content. Lots of individuals and corporations are doing just this, though, again, this particular author really seems to have put some work into it. Kudos to him. I hope the product is good and he profits from it, as he should.
For what it's worth, I read his statement as being more pointedly against the excessive jury award, not the RIAA actions. Probably a mix of both, but I seriously doubt any artist would be standing up if the jury had awarded $100 or $1000 per song. The media wouldn't have paid much attention either.
Completely agree. Those that do (WSJ, Guardian, Times UK, etc) are increasingly a part of a lot of people's reading. WSJ does a very good job, as well, including linking to related stories on competitors sites and providing primary source documents when appropriate. The only issue I have with this post is the use of Google as an example of how linking works for sites. Again, using an extreme example to define a rule is folly. Google isn't in the "news" business and doesn't create content, so their needs and goals are largely different, and their scale is certainly different. A better example would have been Drudge or Guardian or WSJ.
Huh? Well, since the global economy bases an awful lot of what it is on intellectual property laws, I say that there are a vast number of people out there (a majority, who knows, but billions I'm sure) that "profit" from IP. Profit may come in the way of a royalty payment, or a paycheck from a business that uses IP to make money, or perhaps the benefit of a design that saved a family member's life, or a drug that cured their cold allowing them to go back to work a day early to earn more money. As a result, just about anyone in the media/publishing space, advertising, pharma, lots of manufacturing, design, academia and many, many more, "profit" from the "current system of intellectual property." A broad statement requires broad evidence. Don't think it's there in this case.
I think a more correct and supportable statement would be that "Of the people who advocate AGAINST the current system of "intellectual property" most actually profit from it today, directly or indirectly." Interesting, isn't it? That said, just because someone benefits from a system does not mean that their advocacy or counter-advocacy is less valid or authentic.
On the post: How Does Offering Free Content Insult Those Who Pay?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Entitlement
On the post: How Does Offering Free Content Insult Those Who Pay?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Entitlement - Isn't THAT Rich
Here are two quick ones, there are surely more, but I am not going to take the time to troll through your postings:
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090513/0132364860.shtml
http://techdirt.com/articles/20 090424/0348184633.shtml
"But I'd argue you're confusing a mix of economic proof, datapoints *mixed* with *some* theory as "just theory." And then you're using that to brush off the proof and the data."
Possibly, but your "proof" and your datapoints are often soooo niche, limited to a specific content producer with a specific product, that it is simply untenable to extrapolate that to businesses as a whole within that industry, much less beyond it. If I brush off anything it's as a result of this rather than not understanding the evidence provided. As I've said many times before, the issue of scale is too often ignored when it is really, really meaningful.
"It's an incredibly accurate word. You have not yet shown why it is not, though it appears to have set off quite an emotional response in you. Try to dial down the emotion and think about it rationally."
Oh Mike. This is both funny and sad. It's funny because you very specifically and surgically failed to address my specific comment about words you used when responding to my prior post ("upset" and "worked-up") which better describe your response than my post. It's sad because this is an obvious literary device intended to belittle the point of one debater. The truth is that it really points to your emotionality and your frustration with either 1) your weak points or 2) your audience, both of which are troublesome for you, not me. For someone who likes to give the appearance of a dispassionate intellectual, you dive into these emotional assumptions and reactions regularly. Seriously, check yourself, Mike.
"I never said otherwise. I have said that many of them are going about it the wrong way. Some are doing a much better job than others, and I've been quick to celebrate those doing smart things as well. You seem to think I've said that they're all dinosaurs. That's not true. But when one is doing something that will harm it, I'm going to say it."
Okay. You may intend things that way, but your writing comes off differently at least to me. Most of what you rail against is big business and whole industries (which you conveniently homogenize). Most of what you celebrate is niche plays (you call them "business models") by minor actors. I guess I can recall you calling out a big business once or twice for something positive on the IP front, but it's rare.
"Because we've seen over and over and over again that the ones who fight it rather than embracing the new opportunities head on are the ones that LOSE on the flip side. Must we go through a history lesson? The ones who say that "we'll wait until the business model is proven" discover that those who prove the business model are the ones who win."
I agree that some of those business that wait will be irreparably harmed. But many will NOT. Many will be just fine waiting a beat, letting others take the first leap and then using their scale, content, distribution channels, whatever to come on strong, adopt the alternative and do just fine. THIS has been shown time and time again, as well. Business can be about being first to market, but it's more often about being best to market with a sustainable model (by which I mean an actual comprehensive business model, not what is thrown around here). Your writing seems not to recognize this. First and quickest seems to trump everything in your business world. That is sometimes true. But not nearly always.
"Consumer entitlement is a given in the marketplace. Business entitlement is a legal issue and an abuse of process. You can't do much about the first, but the second is pretty close to fraud and damaging for society. Get over it and focus on how to succeed given the first."
Consumer entitlement up to the point of illegality, yes. The problem is that the legal market for content is now being driven by illegal activity. That's a huge complication that makes the economics more difficult to understand and predict. Legitimate business have to work within the law. At least by your apparent definition, consumers do not. That's a major problem.
As for your comment (at least as I read it) that businesses asserting their rights constitute "pretty close to fraud" I just say: wow. Firstly, I bet what's in your head are those very FEW (by both number and percentage when we talk about tens of millions of pieces of content and IP out there every year) examples of businesses pushing the limits, falsely claiming copyright, suing people and such. Those are the exceptions not the rule. As you say, "get over it" and stop using the emotionality of those exceptions as a crutch. And as for damaging society, that's a big, big statement, one which does not seem to factor in the benefits that these businesses also bring to the table (presently and historically). And please don't just limit any examples to the music or entertainment industry groups...this subject is much broader than that and you know it.
On the post: The Myth Of Original Creators
Re: awww yeah!
On the post: How Does Offering Free Content Insult Those Who Pay?
Re: Re: Entitlement - Isn't THAT Rich
"I don't see how it's controversial to suggest that companies unwilling to change their business model may find difficulty staying in business."
No, what you do is describe them as stupid, fascist, archaic, etc., etc. The fact is that most of the business you rail against are still eminently profitable, while the "models" you support are not, or not yet, or not by much. Do I see the market changing? Certainly. But do I (or you) have special powers to know where it is going better than anyone else? Surely not. You have your theories, some well-founded, some not so. Others have theirs, some well-founded, some not so. I enjoy absorbing and reacting to many of them. Welcome.
In this post, YOU chose to use the intellectually loaded term "entitlement." That's your word. Entitlement has a whole lot of baggage as a political, economic and social term and it has clear moral and ethical entanglement.
"...unwillingness to change their business model in the face of competition -- AND THEN to insist that THE MARKET NOT CHANGE either through public pressure or through legal changes is very much entitlement."
Actually, likely not. Many of the businesses you rail against are not nearly as static as you assume (or accuse). In fact, especially in the media and publishing spaces, many companies (I am directly familiar with several large ones) are DESPERATELY working on new approaches to their markets and establishing alternative relationships with consumers. They are extremely interested in exploring new paths for revenue. But the fact is that most of them are profitable NOW, so they can't screw the pooch. The have to make sure they move from one solid footing to another. This is where the oft-ignored concept of scale kicks in: what 10 guys in a garage can tolerate in terms of risk, change rate and uncertainty is very, very different than a Fortune 1000 company.
Your view of these companies as static dinosaurs leads you to view them as (WARNING: loaded term coming!) acting entitled. In fact, protection of their existing markets and approaches is part of an extremely predictable and largely reasonable protectionism which most businesses engage in when under stress. They defend their old markets and methods until new ones are solidified. Businesses rarely evolve without a fight or overnight. While there are exceptions, why would a 20 or 50 or 100 year old business drive itself into the ground over defending a business "model" that doesn't work....simple reality is that MOST won't, or won't knowingly. Why would they? Some will do fail to change (or fail to change quick enough) and die off, be acquired or lose their marketshare. But many will adapt, over time, after a struggle.
Please note that I'm speaking of businesses, not an "industry." Industries themselves are rarely monolithic and no not have the fiduciary responsibilities of an individual business, nor other pressures. They are NOT equivalent.
As for confusing terms, I have no confusion. I was giving another (better, I feel) entitlement example which involves consumers. You are relating one entitlement to the other...I am not (or at least did not intend that thread).
On the post: How Does Offering Free Content Insult Those Who Pay?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Entitlement - Isn't THAT Rich
On the post: The Myth Of Original Creators
Re: Re: Re: Mommy wow, I am a big boy now!
On the post: How Does Offering Free Content Insult Those Who Pay?
Re: Re: Entitlement
And given that the vast majority of those grabbing free content daily are doing so just for the free content, not as a political statement, it cannot be ignored. To re-use your words, you are "so blinded" by the intellectual exercise of your over-philosophized stances that you cannot see that most of the infringers (thieves, pirates, civil disobedients, whatever) just want free stuff and could give two hoots about IP reform or your micro-niche examples of go-to-market strategies which you insist on calling "business models." You're trying to build a foundation under a very shaky house, hoping the inspectors don't catch you and architects don't laugh.
On the post: How Does Offering Free Content Insult Those Who Pay?
Re: Re: Re: Entitlement - Isn't THAT Rich
To be clear, I think Hulu has a lot of promise, but the state of digital advertising is largely abysmal and makes it difficult to sustain businesses which are expensive to operate, at least as a sole means of support. I hope they can figure it out, as the convenience and quality (not to mention legality) is great!
On the post: The Myth Of Original Creators
Re:
On the post: The Myth Of Original Creators
Re:
On the post: How Does Offering Free Content Insult Those Who Pay?
Entitlement - Isn't THAT Rich
On the post: Infamous Niro JPEG Patent Smacked Down Again
USPTO Gets It Right - Eventually
On the post: Richard Marx, One Of The Artists Jammie Thomas Supposedly Shared, Blasts Verdict, Apologizes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright law
"Did you know back in the days when you had to register for copyright how many authors actually did? The %s are incredibly low. Most knew they didn't need (c)." Really, is that the reason they didn't apply for copyright? Are you basing that assessment of their individual reasoning on interviews with these multi-generationally dead authors in statistically significant numbers? Or is it just your hopeful assumption, Mike? I'd bet that a material factor was that many authors didn't know HOW to apply for the protection or that such protection was even available to them. For the US, back in the day when government wasn't all-encompassing, people could go nearly their entire lives without interacting with anything other than their local township. That lasted quite a ways into the 20th century, with the Depression or WWII usually cited the watershed moments when that changed for many (but not nearly all or even a majority) of people. That the esoteric process for sending your materials to the LoC or USPTO wasn't known by most Americans for most of the existence of the country is ENTIRELY believable.
"I love this line. It's based on nothing, and credits all sorts of works with "relying on IP" even if it really doesn't. It's the biggest lie the copyright/patent industry loves to spew." Educate me. And not by guessing at what COULD be, or citing endless industry-specific mico-examples all from within the last 6 months, but explain to me how this is a fallacy today, with business models actually in use from mom and pops to Fortune 500. And I didn't use the word "relying" I said "tied up" meaning involved with, affected by, acting for/against, benefiting from directly/indirectly. My mind is truly open, Mike.
On the post: Richard Marx, One Of The Artists Jammie Thomas Supposedly Shared, Blasts Verdict, Apologizes
Re: Re: Re: Copyright law
Just because some individuals, companies and organizations are trying to push the envelope far beyond what is reasonable and right does not mean, in my opinion, that we trash the entire system and concept, nor does it mean that all of humanity is forgoing some kind of revolutionary renaissance as a result. IP and copyright ain't just about music and movies...a goodly portion of the entire global economy (and billions of livelihoods) are tied up in it. What might work for publishing or gaming, might not work at all for pharma or manufacturing, so reform has to be done carefully.
On the post: Buy The Novel, Get A Lot More -- Including True Reasons To Buy
Re: new morality, new markets
And my god, man, your prose is 10 feet thick! Good for you, I guess. :)
On the post: Buy The Novel, Get A Lot More -- Including True Reasons To Buy
Re: Re: Where's the "Free"?
But seriously, I thought I had read so many downloaders right here on TechDirt writing that they religiously compensate content producers for their work if they like it. If that's the case, all the rest of this is noise, because they would make money on just the book, if it's good and if they can download it for free, right?
To further ruin Mike's day, this critic will agree that this is a good example of well-articulated value adds that entice casual fans and non-fans to take a leap, especially if word-of-mouth is good. And it increases fan "stickiness" and mindshare, which is good for any content producer. My only critique of the post is the categorization of the story in the "now-this-is-unique." Fully realized, sure. But not unique. Novelty incentives go back to the earliest days of trade, and are certainly nothing new with books, music or movies. I bought a Clint Eastwood Dirty Harry box set a bit ago that had all sorts of inserts in an "evidence kit," additional interviews and add-ons, and links to "exclusive" web content. Lots of individuals and corporations are doing just this, though, again, this particular author really seems to have put some work into it. Kudos to him. I hope the product is good and he profits from it, as he should.
On the post: Richard Marx, One Of The Artists Jammie Thomas Supposedly Shared, Blasts Verdict, Apologizes
Against the Award, not the RIAA
On the post: Why Do Newspapers So Rarely Link Out?
Yep
On the post: Mos Def Tries T-Shirt As An Album Business Model
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Would King Lear Ever Have Been Written If Copyright Law Existed?
Re: Profit
I think a more correct and supportable statement would be that "Of the people who advocate AGAINST the current system of "intellectual property" most actually profit from it today, directly or indirectly." Interesting, isn't it? That said, just because someone benefits from a system does not mean that their advocacy or counter-advocacy is less valid or authentic.
Next >>