Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They signed with Atlantic last week.
Actually, all the Idol style shows do what record companies do normally, except they are done in bulk and in front of the public: They look at a ton of acts, and select a very few.
Oh, yeah, that many delusional people do show up. Next time there is a tryout in your area, go check it out, it's wild.
Facebook's intent isn't to "steal" traffic. In reality, what they are going is taking non-news traffic (people visiting facebook) and turning them into news viewers. It isn't like people are cruising facebook to get the local headlines.
Google on the other hand is doing the opposite, they are taking news traffic, and "getting in the way", hoping to profit from the traffic in one manner or another.
Never before has it been possible to strip away these experiences from the product... until now, the Digital Age.
And yet, for all the discussion of "experiences", without the basic product that people value and desire, all the experience in the world is worth crap.
The movie theater experience for a crappy movie is crap.
The book experience for a crappy book is crap.
A crappy song is a crappy song, no matter how you deliver it.
People enjoy the experience, they value the underlying product. If you forget that, you are doomed to fail.
"getting" it really isn't important, as much as the band apparently realizing that the modern day system is just a small step on a long ladder, with a record label deal further up the ladder than selling t-shirts off the side of the stage at gigs.
So apparently this "new" artist still aspires to be the "old" artist, call it "get rich or die trying".
After all, according to TAM, not even the notional "expiration" of copyright should count as an end to the monopoly. They can just "claw" the cultural "product" back, by re-monopolizing it, at whim.
BULLSHIT!
Quit putting lies in my mouth.
I answered all of your questions on that before. If something is still under copyright and copyright is extended, it remains under copyright. If something had gone to the public domain, it should stay in the public domain, even if copyright is extended after the fact.
My opinion of you just got lower again. Quit making stuff up about me.
In the past, it was called paying your dues, playing lots of shitty gigs, and getting your act together. Nothing is new under the sun, is it? It isn't like record companies were plucking random people off the street to see if they had talent.
Another fine example of why you only deserve mockery, almost as interestingly retarded as "Dirt is dry water".
So sad that you missed the point. I will say that the land under many of the houses in San Fran, you know, "dirt" pretty much turned to water during the last earthquake. I have a feeling that is just out of your trolling grasp.
As for my comments here, the intent is to point out that there are plenty of things that we would like to do in life that would make us happy, but to do them we have to displease others or break the law. I am sure I would have a good time, but to do it I would have to break moral restrictions and risk the legal implications on their marriage, etc.
Just because it's possible doesn't mean it is right.
I already gave a great example: Evidence that has been denied by the court for whatever the reason may be.
The US (and most western) court systems are based on the evidence presented in the court. The jurors take that evidence, and make their decision based on what is in court. Period.
They don't base their judgments on Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken. They don't listen to Dave, Jay, or Oprah, they don't get The View, they don't get to open wikipedia, and they don't get to visit techdirt.
They have to base their judgment on what is presented in court. Everything else is "evidence not admitted or not presented" and is misleading.
How difficult an idea is that?
If they jury needs more information, the come back to the court, and ask the judge for guidance, information, or clarification.
That stops outside sources from tainting the process.
I really, really would love to spend a night with my neighbor's truly hot (ex-model) wife, but social norms, my respect for him, the law, and a whole bunch of other things makes that impossible.
"And if you don't see the shame in that, then you're missing a lot. "
Mike, apparently you just don't understand the legal system or all that goes into it. Allowing information (and worse, opinion) to come into a juror's hands during a court case dminishes the entire system.
We might as well just try people by a vote on TMZ.
When you post up stuff like this, you leave me shaking my head. It exposes a huge streak of ignorance on your behalf.
Exactly. The question becomes will the court systems in that country move to a more generic "block P2P traffic" at some point, thus making it significantly harder for the average joe (or jill) to be part of a P2P community?
People will route around problems, and they will keep doing that until it becomes too much effort to route around, then they will change their ways.
The wild west didn't last forever, and it won't last forever online either.
the judicial system is going to have to come to terms with the fact that people use technology to research and communicate, rather than trying to pretend it can be stopped.
Mike, you are coming at this from entirely wrong end. The court system is one of the few places where we can in fact control what happens, and in order for just verdicts to be reached, you have to control the environment.
Juries make their decisions based on the facts of the case as presented, not based on third party information that may or may not be relevant to the case. The rules of admissibility of evidence, how that evidence is presented, even the chain of custody of physical evidence is all part of the discussion of a legal case.
Let's say as an example someone is arrested for murder, and a gun is discovered in a locked box in the trunk of their car, but is found without a warrant. That gun is the gun that killed the person, has some splatter of their blood on it, and the killer's finger prints on the gun (and it's in his car!). All of those facts are discussed online, they go back and forth, but in court the gun is excluded because the search was made without a warrant. Now, your "smart juror" could go online during the case, search for information on the case, and discover that there was a gun, and it was in the car, and it had a finger print, all that was discussed during the motion hearing that got the gun thrown out.
How do you undo that knowledge? Now the "smart juror" knows the guy is guilty, yet the evidence presented in court isn't enough to convict him. Will you permit the juror to find him guilty on the basis of information found online that was specifically excluded from the case? Do you violate the defendant's rights in order to do this?
One day you will realize that "because you can" isn't always the right answer. Until then, you will keep asking silly questions like this.
Court cases should be decided on the evidence presented. If the judge feels that the jury requires more information, that information is provided by the court.
Can you imagine an IP lawsuit settled because someone read Techdirt or Torrentfreak? The appeals would be instantaneous.
On the post: The New Middleclass Musicians: I Fight Dragons
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They signed with Atlantic last week.
Oh, yeah, that many delusional people do show up. Next time there is a tryout in your area, go check it out, it's wild.
On the post: Facebook Sends Lots Of Traffic To News Sites... Will They Start Demanding To Be Paid?
Google on the other hand is doing the opposite, they are taking news traffic, and "getting in the way", hoping to profit from the traffic in one manner or another.
it is a night and day difference.
On the post: Understanding What's Scarce And What's Not...
And yet, for all the discussion of "experiences", without the basic product that people value and desire, all the experience in the world is worth crap.
The movie theater experience for a crappy movie is crap.
The book experience for a crappy book is crap.
A crappy song is a crappy song, no matter how you deliver it.
People enjoy the experience, they value the underlying product. If you forget that, you are doomed to fail.
On the post: Italy Blocks The Pirate Bay Yet Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I keep those for you and RD".
I didn't say that you were that specific AC. "you and RD" pretty much says more than one person.
Feeling guilty?
On the post: Remix Culture Is About The Culture As Much As The Remix
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moh Oh Oh Ron.
On the post: The New Middleclass Musicians: I Fight Dragons
Re:
So apparently this "new" artist still aspires to be the "old" artist, call it "get rich or die trying".
On the post: Italy Blocks The Pirate Bay Yet Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Remix Culture Is About The Culture As Much As The Remix
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moh Oh Oh Ron.
BULLSHIT!
Quit putting lies in my mouth.
I answered all of your questions on that before. If something is still under copyright and copyright is extended, it remains under copyright. If something had gone to the public domain, it should stay in the public domain, even if copyright is extended after the fact.
My opinion of you just got lower again. Quit making stuff up about me.
On the post: The New Middleclass Musicians: I Fight Dragons
Re: Re: Re: They signed with Atlantic last week.
On the post: The New Middleclass Musicians: I Fight Dragons
Re: They signed with Atlantic last week.
A record label contract, that is.
On the post: Author's Guild Didn't Want To 'Pull An RIAA' But Still Misses The Point
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100204/0125048040.shtml
*shakes head*
On the post: Remix Culture Is About The Culture As Much As The Remix
Re: Re: Moh Oh Oh Ron.
So sad that you missed the point. I will say that the land under many of the houses in San Fran, you know, "dirt" pretty much turned to water during the last earthquake. I have a feeling that is just out of your trolling grasp.
As for my comments here, the intent is to point out that there are plenty of things that we would like to do in life that would make us happy, but to do them we have to displease others or break the law. I am sure I would have a good time, but to do it I would have to break moral restrictions and risk the legal implications on their marriage, etc.
Just because it's possible doesn't mean it is right.
On the post: Why Shouldn't Jurors Be Able To Use Technology To Do More Research?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The US (and most western) court systems are based on the evidence presented in the court. The jurors take that evidence, and make their decision based on what is in court. Period.
They don't base their judgments on Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken. They don't listen to Dave, Jay, or Oprah, they don't get The View, they don't get to open wikipedia, and they don't get to visit techdirt.
They have to base their judgment on what is presented in court. Everything else is "evidence not admitted or not presented" and is misleading.
How difficult an idea is that?
If they jury needs more information, the come back to the court, and ask the judge for guidance, information, or clarification.
That stops outside sources from tainting the process.
On the post: Remix Culture Is About The Culture As Much As The Remix
"And if you don't see the shame in that, then you're missing a lot. "
On the post: Why Shouldn't Jurors Be Able To Use Technology To Do More Research?
Re: Re:
We might as well just try people by a vote on TMZ.
When you post up stuff like this, you leave me shaking my head. It exposes a huge streak of ignorance on your behalf.
On the post: Why Shouldn't Jurors Be Able To Use Technology To Do More Research?
Re: Re: Re: Just plain wrong
Yes. Emphatically yes. No question.
Technicalities are just one step away from being railroading. Was the gun really in the box, or did someone plant it?
I wouldn't want a misinformed juror to call someone guilty on evidence that was not presented in court.
On the post: Italy Blocks The Pirate Bay Yet Again
Re: Re: Re:
People will route around problems, and they will keep doing that until it becomes too much effort to route around, then they will change their ways.
The wild west didn't last forever, and it won't last forever online either.
On the post: Italy Blocks The Pirate Bay Yet Again
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Shouldn't Jurors Be Able To Use Technology To Do More Research?
Just plain wrong
Mike, you are coming at this from entirely wrong end. The court system is one of the few places where we can in fact control what happens, and in order for just verdicts to be reached, you have to control the environment.
Juries make their decisions based on the facts of the case as presented, not based on third party information that may or may not be relevant to the case. The rules of admissibility of evidence, how that evidence is presented, even the chain of custody of physical evidence is all part of the discussion of a legal case.
Let's say as an example someone is arrested for murder, and a gun is discovered in a locked box in the trunk of their car, but is found without a warrant. That gun is the gun that killed the person, has some splatter of their blood on it, and the killer's finger prints on the gun (and it's in his car!). All of those facts are discussed online, they go back and forth, but in court the gun is excluded because the search was made without a warrant. Now, your "smart juror" could go online during the case, search for information on the case, and discover that there was a gun, and it was in the car, and it had a finger print, all that was discussed during the motion hearing that got the gun thrown out.
How do you undo that knowledge? Now the "smart juror" knows the guy is guilty, yet the evidence presented in court isn't enough to convict him. Will you permit the juror to find him guilty on the basis of information found online that was specifically excluded from the case? Do you violate the defendant's rights in order to do this?
One day you will realize that "because you can" isn't always the right answer. Until then, you will keep asking silly questions like this.
On the post: Why Shouldn't Jurors Be Able To Use Technology To Do More Research?
Re: Evidence admissibility
Court cases should be decided on the evidence presented. If the judge feels that the jury requires more information, that information is provided by the court.
Can you imagine an IP lawsuit settled because someone read Techdirt or Torrentfreak? The appeals would be instantaneous.
Next >>