And the wifi you sometimes find in airports and hotels.
And ISPs don't have a safe harbor provision anymore, they now have to know what their customers are sending through there networks.
Clueless doesn't even begin to describe it. Is the US Congress also affected by the same problem that Universal Music CEOs seem to have? (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071127/011720.shtml)
Are they unable to find any experts that could help them make an educated judgement on this issue?
Don't you get it?
Here is CEO, someone responsible for the business models a company uses, claiming he doesn't have a clue in what kind of business he's in, and not knowing a business model, even if it would drop on his head.
Clearly he's an incapable leader.
And not being able to hire techies, because he wouldn't know whether they were lying to them or not. We have a saying in The Netherlands: "How the bard is like, that's how much he trusts his customers"; in other words, if you automatically think that other people are lying to you, then maybe it's you are not one of the most truthful people. If you think you can't trust anyone, then you are not to be trusted either.
Attorney fees aren't exactly cheap, and these cases can take a long time. It's not a matter that can be settled within a few hours. (though from our vantage point, it might seem that way, because most of these cases are just frivolous)
By banning it, they are pushing it further underground.
We've seen it happen before, when Napster was outlawed.
If they think a new law will change that, they are mistaken.
I don't condone blatant copyright violations (though I have to admit, that the current copyright laws not exactly consumer-friendly are), but I also don't want to see this new technology (that can easily be used for good as well), be destroyed by pure greed from the media companies and ignorance from the lawmakers' side.
For a lawmaker, ignorance is not an excuse. If he or she should get knowledgeable on the subject he or she wants to make laws for, preferably from independent people and not from lobbyists.
The artists do still rely on marketing (is expensive); how else does anyone know that you have brought out a new CD?
But I'm not apologizing for the music industry. They should've seen very early on that all they should be are marketing bureaus for said artist.
Too bad, these marketing bureau managers are too greedy to see that, and refuse to believe that they are nothing more than that, and want all the money they can squeeze out of their licensed artists.
I wouldn't be surprised if they started demanding money off of the merch sales too.
24?! Yeah, take that, you pirates(!)
Sure, chalk this one of up as a win against those large-scale pirates. Really nicely done.
Instead of taking action against people duplicating discs at large scales, they take the easy road, and sue their customers, taking more of their money, than these customers even have.
How many times can someone shoot himself in the foot? If it's up to the RIAA, there are many feet to shoot.
In the Netherlands (and I believe also in Belgium) you can buy a beer in cinemas.
But here too everything is overpriced.
Example:
0.5liter of Cola is about 2 euros (comparison: you can get a 2liter bottle of the same brand in the store for that amount).
Not only radio stations hand out discs.
Also newspapers or magazines distribute promotional CDs.
BTW, it's strange that they make a fuss out of this. It's free promotion! Why are the media corporations so dead against free promotion?
One other strange thing in this discussion is this:
with CD-sales, you hear media corporations say: "You buy the disc and a licence to the music on that disc".
Now, they seem to say "You only have a licence to said disc, and nothing more"... I find that incredibly hard to believe.
First sale doctrine also applies to free goodies everywhere, so also on discs.
If those media companies would give me a pen or a lanyard or a key chain for promotional purposes. I can then sell that to a collector.
It's exactly the same thing.
So why should it be different for discs?
It's not about the business model, it's about control. And the labels could not control allofmp3, so they were a threat. Large enough that they enlisted WIPO and other organizations to put pressure on Russia to take the site down and start litigating, even though AOMp3 was following the letter of the law in Russia.
And paid their dues to ROMS.
That the RIAA doesn't have agreements with ROMS regarding royalties, should NOT be AOMP3s problem.
But clearly the labels (Sony, Warner et al) made it AOMP3s problem.
You see the same issue with internet radio. The labels can't control what the internet radio stations play, so they have to be put under, with outrageous royalty fees.
You see a product for sale for 1/10th of what its price should've been (for instance a Plasma tv for 100 bucks, instead of 1000) And it's painfully obvious that a mistake has been made.
Is it OK for you to buy that product?
Well, the example of anger management courses would not go down well with me. It would be my reason of leaving the company, no matter what kind of service they offered.
Most times, when I call, I have a problem with something (more often than not, their fault), and I don't need to be belittled by a company, because they can't get their act together. :)
On the post: Congress Rushes Through Law To Protect The Children... And Make Open WiFi A Huge Liability
There goes the chance of municipal Wifi
And ISPs don't have a safe harbor provision anymore, they now have to know what their customers are sending through there networks.
Clueless doesn't even begin to describe it. Is the US Congress also affected by the same problem that Universal Music CEOs seem to have? (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071127/011720.shtml)
Are they unable to find any experts that could help them make an educated judgement on this issue?
On the post: Universal Music's CEO Gleefully Explains How Clueless He Is
Re:
Here is CEO, someone responsible for the business models a company uses, claiming he doesn't have a clue in what kind of business he's in, and not knowing a business model, even if it would drop on his head.
Clearly he's an incapable leader.
And not being able to hire techies, because he wouldn't know whether they were lying to them or not. We have a saying in The Netherlands: "How the bard is like, that's how much he trusts his customers"; in other words, if you automatically think that other people are lying to you, then maybe it's you are not one of the most truthful people. If you think you can't trust anyone, then you are not to be trusted either.
On the post: Universal Music's CEO Gleefully Explains How Clueless He Is
Re:
On the post: Having A School Block Wikipedia Does Not Further The Cause Of Education
Re: Let's also block Encyclopedia Brittanica from
On the post: Having A School Block Wikipedia Does Not Further The Cause Of Education
Let's also block Encyclopedia Brittanica from scho
On the post: The Infringement Age: How Much Do You Infringe On A Daily Basis?
Re: Mind Eraser
On the post: Vonage Settles Verizon Patent Dispute; Next Up: AT&T
Re: Editing
"I think that our foreign policy effects the situation"
http://xkcd.com/326/
On the post: AT&T Joins The Party Of Jealous Telcos: Sues Vonage For Patent Infringement
Re: Re: Re: wha?
Attorney fees aren't exactly cheap, and these cases can take a long time. It's not a matter that can be settled within a few hours. (though from our vantage point, it might seem that way, because most of these cases are just frivolous)
On the post: Congress: P2P Promotes Identity Theft! We Need New Laws!
We've seen it happen before, when Napster was outlawed.
If they think a new law will change that, they are mistaken.
I don't condone blatant copyright violations (though I have to admit, that the current copyright laws not exactly consumer-friendly are), but I also don't want to see this new technology (that can easily be used for good as well), be destroyed by pure greed from the media companies and ignorance from the lawmakers' side.
For a lawmaker, ignorance is not an excuse. If he or she should get knowledgeable on the subject he or she wants to make laws for, preferably from independent people and not from lobbyists.
On the post: A Few More Music Business Model Suggestions
Re: Re: Re:
But I'm not apologizing for the music industry. They should've seen very early on that all they should be are marketing bureaus for said artist.
Too bad, these marketing bureau managers are too greedy to see that, and refuse to believe that they are nothing more than that, and want all the money they can squeeze out of their licensed artists.
I wouldn't be surprised if they started demanding money off of the merch sales too.
On the post: Bush Administration: Happy, But Wrong, About RIAA Courtroom Win
How many songs?
Sure, chalk this one of up as a win against those large-scale pirates. Really nicely done.
Instead of taking action against people duplicating discs at large scales, they take the easy road, and sue their customers, taking more of their money, than these customers even have.
How many times can someone shoot himself in the foot? If it's up to the RIAA, there are many feet to shoot.
On the post: First RIAA Lawsuit To Face A Jury
Do they have Gene Hackman on their team?
On the post: Biggest Box Office Summer Ever... And Yet All We Hear About Is Piracy?
Re: Take a lesson from 1990
But here too everything is overpriced.
Example:
0.5liter of Cola is about 2 euros (comparison: you can get a 2liter bottle of the same brand in the store for that amount).
On the post: Who Really Owns Promotional CDs?
Re:
Also newspapers or magazines distribute promotional CDs.
BTW, it's strange that they make a fuss out of this. It's free promotion! Why are the media corporations so dead against free promotion?
One other strange thing in this discussion is this:
with CD-sales, you hear media corporations say: "You buy the disc and a licence to the music on that disc".
Now, they seem to say "You only have a licence to said disc, and nothing more"... I find that incredibly hard to believe.
First sale doctrine also applies to free goodies everywhere, so also on discs.
If those media companies would give me a pen or a lanyard or a key chain for promotional purposes. I can then sell that to a collector.
It's exactly the same thing.
So why should it be different for discs?
On the post: NFL Pushing Boundaries Of Ridiculous: Demands Photo Journalists Advertise Sponsors At Games
I don't know what's worse
On the post: Allofmp3.com Owners Could Face Jailtime For Demonstrating Better Business Model To RIAA
It's about control
And paid their dues to ROMS.
That the RIAA doesn't have agreements with ROMS regarding royalties, should NOT be AOMP3s problem.
But clearly the labels (Sony, Warner et al) made it AOMP3s problem.
You see the same issue with internet radio. The labels can't control what the internet radio stations play, so they have to be put under, with outrageous royalty fees.
On the post: Blame Murphy's Law, Excessive Hubris For Blackouts In SF
well duh!
(emphasis mine)
The power goes out and they trust on electrical systems to switch to back up generators?
No wonder it went wrong. :-)
On the post: Criminal Charges For Using A Slot Machine With Faulty Software?
Re: Ahem
Is it OK for you to buy that product?
On the post: How To Make Being Put On Hold Even More Annoying: Pipe In Some Ads
Re:
Most times, when I call, I have a problem with something (more often than not, their fault), and I don't need to be belittled by a company, because they can't get their act together. :)
On the post: The Internet Is Global... Unless You're Watching BlogTV
Interesting...
Very interesting...
Next >>