"To promote the new Julia Roberts vehicle 'Eat Pray Love,' the Home Shopping Network is devoting 72 hours of airtime for programming that simultaneously plugs the Sony Pictures film and more than 400 products across multiple categories that are somehow related to the movie."
The low end of the live music business isn't doing so well
Looking at the report I see:
"The live music industry exhibited a productivity gain in 2009 by generating more money through fewer events."
"... as reported last year, the gap between the grass roots acts and superstars is widening, both in touring and at events where the big names are needed to attract fans."
"Down in the tail, the closure of pubs (49 a week, according to The Publican) puts more pressure on the low end of the market, which makes it increasingly difficult for emerging talent to find an audience."
Archivalia: US: Copyright of Sound Recordings of World War I Music: "3. Ignore the law. Note that many companies do exactly that, releasing copies of early recordings confident in the idea that no one cares about the copyright in those recordings anymore. Same thing with the many web sites that include recordings of WWI music. I wrote a blog posting awhile ago called 'Real Life Risk Assessment' (found at http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/10/real-life-risk-assessment.html ) praising the Judaica Sound Archives for digitizing and making available much of their holdings, in spite of the fact that little is in the public domain. You could do the same."
It's been often argued here that ideas are easy and execution is hard. But if a company has access to all the necessary legal resources, they shouldn't need to execute at all.
Is the concept of IP protection wrong, or is it just a matter of the system being abused? People who don't have a legitimate claim shouldn't be able to do this and the system should be fixed to disallow it.
What I am curious about is why pro-IP folks think that laws should go to the highest bidder.
I suppose until we have strong election finance reform and also rein in lobbyists, everything will go to the highest bidder. But that means more legislation. If it is entirely a free market economy then it probably will be about money, don't you think?
I guess I think corporations will always act like corporations if given the chance. So even if we eliminate IP protection, they will use whatever resources they have to their advantage.
So that's what I am asking. If we eliminate IP protection, won't corporations still use their resources to their advantage? Will the playing field be leveled or will it go even more in favor of those who have resources?
Seems like corporations buying what they want in DC is exactly what they should be doing.
What I am curious is why anti-IP folks think that the world will change if there are no IP protection laws. Seems like those with access to capital will be able to control the markets under that scenario, too.
Let's say you have a good idea. A big company with deep resources hears about it and beats you to market with it.
It's been often argued here that ideas are easy and execution is hard. So if a company has access to all the necessary resources, they should be able to execute quickly if they are nimble.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a strange "moderation" that you embrace.
I just thought of an example that I can relate to.
There are horrendous things being done to women in some countries. But I'm not sure bombing those countries into the ground is the proper solution.
This is the sort of thing I'd advocate. It changes the world, but it does so in a positive way rather than resorting to negative tactics.
Two-wheel triumph : "In a place where women dutifully give birth in dingy huts, the men know of little outside their fields, and the world revolves around the local mosque; the sight of a 'modern' woman visitor astride her bike is a spectacle. The more so as Akhter zaps around with gadgets like a netbook, GSM mobile, blood pressure monitor and pregnancy kit, all deftly packed in her shoulder bag. 'It was a scandal when I started my rounds two years ago with just a mobile phone', says Akhter. Now it is more of a phenomenon. She is treated like a champion by people whose lives she's shaping with once 'scary machines'.
Akhter belongs to a motley band of 'InfoLadies,' who are piloting a revolutionary idea - giving millions of Bangladeshis, trapped in a cycle of poverty and natural disaster, access to information on their doorstep to improve their chances in life."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a strange "moderation" that you embrace.
Here's a quote for you all. I guess some of you would have been Goldwater fans.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater, acceptance speech as Republican candidate for President, 1964
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a strange "moderation" that you embrace.
She argues that people who take a position backed up by evidence shouldn't do so, and then argues about slavery?
Someone else brought up slavery and talked about how the Civil War was fought over it as a way to debunk my approval of moderation and being nice.
All I was doing when I posted my thoughts on adversarial politics was AGREEING with this entire post. Yes, it's good to be nice. It gets more done than being nasty.
If you really want to get into why the Civil War was fought we can do it. But it's a major detour and I don't think what was posted was historically accurate.
Again, if you want to talk about people defending what they believe to the death, there are a lot of current causes we can point to as well. Religion. Abortion rights. People have always vehemently believed in causes and their right to be extreme about them.
Come on folks. I suggest that we be nicer to everyone and someone suggests that somehow it is comparable to advocating slavery? Really?? I'm shaking my head at the thought.
Re: Re: It's a strange "moderation" that you embrace.
I should have included the next paragraph on the history of the Civil War:
Immediately following the attack, four more states -- Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee -- severed their ties with the Union. To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union.
To say the Civil War was about slavery overlooks the economic and political issues that were also in play. It would take books and books for us to sort it all out, but my understanding is that the issue was much more complex than a war between those who supported slavery and those who were against.
Here are two quick references below.
And of course, I don't believe in slavery. But we were talking about causes of wars and whether compromise is good or not. The closest current situation I can think of is the fight for and against abortion. The pro-life folks truly believe they are protecting the rights of the unborn. The pro-choice folks are just as determined that they are protecting women's rights. One compromise is to reduce the need for abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies, although there is disagreement as to what is the best approach to do that.
The Civil War: "On November 6, 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States -- an event that outraged southern states. The Republican party had run on an anti-slavery platform, and many southerners felt that there was no longer a place for them in the Union. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded. By Febrary 1, 1861, six more states -- Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas -- had split from the Union. The seceded states created the Confederate States of America and elected Jefferson Davis, a Mississippi Senator, as their provisional president.
In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned the fire. The Civil War had begun."
Personally I'm not a lawsuit kind of person. And what I would hope everyone gets from my posts is that I'd be much more likely to seek out a mutually-agreed-upon solution than to force one on people.
So I can relate to people being frustrated over so many IP-related lawsuits. I see abuses in the system, too.
But a lot of times the arguments against IP-protection are as unfriendly as the ones for them.
So the reason I started this thread is to say, "Yes, isn't it nice that the Campbell's CEO wrote a friendly letter. Let's all be more like that. It would be a good thing all the way around."
Thanks for pointing that out, Suzanne. If the U.S. had more people like you pointing out how important it is to compromise, the U.S Civil War and the total elimination of slavery might could have been avoided.
Are you prepared to go to war for your beliefs?
I don't want to see violence come about because if IP disagreements, but I have suggested civil disobedience as an option.
I knew people who went to Canada and to prison rather than to go to Vietnam. I also knew people who marched and protested and also sometimes handled police flowers to show that though they disagreed, they wanted to be friendly.
I'm familiar with people making significant sacrifices in the name of what they believe in. So, yes, if you believe copyright and patents are evil and need to be fought at all costs, there are non-violent options to highlight your cause.
I have a lot of respect for groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation which is proactive in trying to change the laws. There are respectful and effective ways to approach this.
I'm not going to respond to whether or not companies today would be pleased to see as Warhol painting (because I don't know for sure). But I will toss out something on how people approach all sorts of discussions these days.
There's a general feeling, especially among those who have been in Washington for decades, that people are not cooperating as much anymore. People are drawing up sides and refuse to concede anything.
I've intentionally tried to be something of a moderate in the Techdirt discussions because I don't think the hard line "IP protection has got to go" is going to get anyone very far. Sure, it unites the Techdirt community into an "US versus THEM" mentality, but I don't see enough people coming together in support of a hard line to actually get much done.
So I think if we want to encourage cooperation, we should demonstrate it ourselves as well. A kinder, gentler tone is a good thing among company presidents, copyright holders, bloggers, politicians, etc.
Maybe there was more civility in the past (unless, of course, you were subject to various forms of discrimination, which has gotten better over time).
If the people patents are supposed to aid aren't interested in having them, perhaps they should put their research into the public domain in some fashion so that everyone has access to the information and no one can patent it. That might be easier at this point than waiting out the legal process. Seems like there are workarounds that can be implemented quite quickly.
If the people patents are supposed to aid aren't interested in having them, perhaps they should put their research into the public domain in some fashion so that everyone has access to the information and no one can patent it. That might be easier at this point than waiting out the legal process. Seems like there are workarounds that can be implemented quite quickly.
Another issue I am concerned about, now that we are increasingly switching to digital items which we often don't even bother to own, is encouraging musicians to produce non-musical physical goods to augment their income.
I mean, I have been a book collector so I appreciate a beautiful book, but I've also run out of space and rarely buy books anymore other than as gifts. And I never buy band t-shirts because I'm not into wearing band merch. I'd rather buy clothes for their practical value.
So for musician income, that leaves selling experiences which have value but don't require manufacturing more stuff.
AFAIK software patents did not come about as a result of any particular legislation, but rather as a result of the judicial system. Hopefully, SCOTUS will be presented with another case from which they can provide a ruling against software patents.
Okay.
But one of the links provided in this thread talks about legislative reform.
I think eliminating software patents would be a much easier approach than tackling the entire patent system all at once.
Since many in the software industry are skipping applying for the patents in the first place, seems like public opinion would likely support a change in legislation.
Some of the "abolish all IP protection" comments seem like tilting at windmills, so I think being pragmatic -- creating patent-free zones, correcting abuses, mounting legal campaigns (the way the EFF does), preventing questionable new legislation -- will produce actual results rather than just endless discussion.
On the post: Connecting Authors To Tangible Goods They Can Sell?
Here it will be done on a big scale
"To promote the new Julia Roberts vehicle 'Eat Pray Love,' the Home Shopping Network is devoting 72 hours of airtime for programming that simultaneously plugs the Sony Pictures film and more than 400 products across multiple categories that are somehow related to the movie."
On the post: UK Music Biz Kept Growing Before The Digital Economy Act; So Why Was It Needed?
The low end of the live music business isn't doing so well
"The live music industry exhibited a productivity gain in 2009 by generating more money through fewer events."
"... as reported last year, the gap between the grass roots acts and superstars is widening, both in touring and at events where the big names are needed to attract fans."
"Down in the tail, the closure of pubs (49 a week, according to The Publican) puts more pressure on the low end of the market, which makes it increasingly difficult for emerging talent to find an audience."
On the post: Why World War I Recordings Won't Enter The Public Domain Until 2049
Recommendation 3
Archivalia: US: Copyright of Sound Recordings of World War I Music: "3. Ignore the law. Note that many companies do exactly that, releasing copies of early recordings confident in the idea that no one cares about the copyright in those recordings anymore. Same thing with the many web sites that include recordings of WWI music. I wrote a blog posting awhile ago called 'Real Life Risk Assessment' (found at http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/10/real-life-risk-assessment.html ) praising the Judaica Sound Archives for digitizing and making available much of their holdings, in spite of the fact that little is in the public domain. You could do the same."
On the post: Telcos Close To 'Deal' On Net Neutrality That Gives Them Everything They Want
Re: Re: Money talks
Is the concept of IP protection wrong, or is it just a matter of the system being abused? People who don't have a legitimate claim shouldn't be able to do this and the system should be fixed to disallow it.
On the post: Telcos Close To 'Deal' On Net Neutrality That Gives Them Everything They Want
Re: Re: Money talks
I suppose until we have strong election finance reform and also rein in lobbyists, everything will go to the highest bidder. But that means more legislation. If it is entirely a free market economy then it probably will be about money, don't you think?
I guess I think corporations will always act like corporations if given the chance. So even if we eliminate IP protection, they will use whatever resources they have to their advantage.
So that's what I am asking. If we eliminate IP protection, won't corporations still use their resources to their advantage? Will the playing field be leveled or will it go even more in favor of those who have resources?
Seems like corporations buying what they want in DC is exactly what they should be doing.
On the post: Telcos Close To 'Deal' On Net Neutrality That Gives Them Everything They Want
Money talks
Money buys access in a lot of places.
What I am curious is why anti-IP folks think that the world will change if there are no IP protection laws. Seems like those with access to capital will be able to control the markets under that scenario, too.
Let's say you have a good idea. A big company with deep resources hears about it and beats you to market with it.
It's been often argued here that ideas are easy and execution is hard. So if a company has access to all the necessary resources, they should be able to execute quickly if they are nimble.
On the post: If Andy Warhol Painted His Campbell's Soup Paintings Today, How Fast Would The Cease & Desist Arrive?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a strange "moderation" that you embrace.
There are horrendous things being done to women in some countries. But I'm not sure bombing those countries into the ground is the proper solution.
This is the sort of thing I'd advocate. It changes the world, but it does so in a positive way rather than resorting to negative tactics.
Two-wheel triumph : "In a place where women dutifully give birth in dingy huts, the men know of little outside their fields, and the world revolves around the local mosque; the sight of a 'modern' woman visitor astride her bike is a spectacle. The more so as Akhter zaps around with gadgets like a netbook, GSM mobile, blood pressure monitor and pregnancy kit, all deftly packed in her shoulder bag. 'It was a scandal when I started my rounds two years ago with just a mobile phone', says Akhter. Now it is more of a phenomenon. She is treated like a champion by people whose lives she's shaping with once 'scary machines'.
Akhter belongs to a motley band of 'InfoLadies,' who are piloting a revolutionary idea - giving millions of Bangladeshis, trapped in a cycle of poverty and natural disaster, access to information on their doorstep to improve their chances in life."
On the post: If Andy Warhol Painted His Campbell's Soup Paintings Today, How Fast Would The Cease & Desist Arrive?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a strange "moderation" that you embrace.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater, acceptance speech as Republican candidate for President, 1964
On the post: If Andy Warhol Painted His Campbell's Soup Paintings Today, How Fast Would The Cease & Desist Arrive?
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a strange "moderation" that you embrace.
Someone else brought up slavery and talked about how the Civil War was fought over it as a way to debunk my approval of moderation and being nice.
All I was doing when I posted my thoughts on adversarial politics was AGREEING with this entire post. Yes, it's good to be nice. It gets more done than being nasty.
If you really want to get into why the Civil War was fought we can do it. But it's a major detour and I don't think what was posted was historically accurate.
Again, if you want to talk about people defending what they believe to the death, there are a lot of current causes we can point to as well. Religion. Abortion rights. People have always vehemently believed in causes and their right to be extreme about them.
Come on folks. I suggest that we be nicer to everyone and someone suggests that somehow it is comparable to advocating slavery? Really?? I'm shaking my head at the thought.
On the post: If Andy Warhol Painted His Campbell's Soup Paintings Today, How Fast Would The Cease & Desist Arrive?
Re: Re: It's a strange "moderation" that you embrace.
Immediately following the attack, four more states -- Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee -- severed their ties with the Union. To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union.
On the post: If Andy Warhol Painted His Campbell's Soup Paintings Today, How Fast Would The Cease & Desist Arrive?
Re: It's a strange "moderation" that you embrace.
Here are two quick references below.
And of course, I don't believe in slavery. But we were talking about causes of wars and whether compromise is good or not. The closest current situation I can think of is the fight for and against abortion. The pro-life folks truly believe they are protecting the rights of the unborn. The pro-choice folks are just as determined that they are protecting women's rights. One compromise is to reduce the need for abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies, although there is disagreement as to what is the best approach to do that.
Civil War - MOMENTUM FOR ABOLITIONISM
The Civil War: "On November 6, 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States -- an event that outraged southern states. The Republican party had run on an anti-slavery platform, and many southerners felt that there was no longer a place for them in the Union. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded. By Febrary 1, 1861, six more states -- Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas -- had split from the Union. The seceded states created the Confederate States of America and elected Jefferson Davis, a Mississippi Senator, as their provisional president.
In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned the fire. The Civil War had begun."
On the post: If Andy Warhol Painted His Campbell's Soup Paintings Today, How Fast Would The Cease & Desist Arrive?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Adversarial politics
So I can relate to people being frustrated over so many IP-related lawsuits. I see abuses in the system, too.
But a lot of times the arguments against IP-protection are as unfriendly as the ones for them.
So the reason I started this thread is to say, "Yes, isn't it nice that the Campbell's CEO wrote a friendly letter. Let's all be more like that. It would be a good thing all the way around."
On the post: If Andy Warhol Painted His Campbell's Soup Paintings Today, How Fast Would The Cease & Desist Arrive?
Re: Re: Adversarial politics
The war started, and it opened up the opportunity to end slavery, but it wasn't fought because of abolitionists.
I have suggested that a patent-free zone makes sense. Set up some areas and kick ass by showing how well it will work.
On the post: If Andy Warhol Painted His Campbell's Soup Paintings Today, How Fast Would The Cease & Desist Arrive?
Re: Re: Adversarial politics
Are you prepared to go to war for your beliefs?
I don't want to see violence come about because if IP disagreements, but I have suggested civil disobedience as an option.
I knew people who went to Canada and to prison rather than to go to Vietnam. I also knew people who marched and protested and also sometimes handled police flowers to show that though they disagreed, they wanted to be friendly.
I'm familiar with people making significant sacrifices in the name of what they believe in. So, yes, if you believe copyright and patents are evil and need to be fought at all costs, there are non-violent options to highlight your cause.
I have a lot of respect for groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation which is proactive in trying to change the laws. There are respectful and effective ways to approach this.
On the post: If Andy Warhol Painted His Campbell's Soup Paintings Today, How Fast Would The Cease & Desist Arrive?
Adversarial politics
There's a general feeling, especially among those who have been in Washington for decades, that people are not cooperating as much anymore. People are drawing up sides and refuse to concede anything.
I've intentionally tried to be something of a moderate in the Techdirt discussions because I don't think the hard line "IP protection has got to go" is going to get anyone very far. Sure, it unites the Techdirt community into an "US versus THEM" mentality, but I don't see enough people coming together in support of a hard line to actually get much done.
So I think if we want to encourage cooperation, we should demonstrate it ourselves as well. A kinder, gentler tone is a good thing among company presidents, copyright holders, bloggers, politicians, etc.
Maybe there was more civility in the past (unless, of course, you were subject to various forms of discrimination, which has gotten better over time).
On the post: Innovation Happens When Ideas Have Sex
Re: Resources.
On the post: Innovation Happens When Ideas Have Sex
Re: Resources.
On the post: Kristin Hersh Turns An Album Into A Book
Re: Natalie Merchant...
I mean, I have been a book collector so I appreciate a beautiful book, but I've also run out of space and rarely buy books anymore other than as gifts. And I never buy band t-shirts because I'm not into wearing band merch. I'd rather buy clothes for their practical value.
So for musician income, that leaves selling experiences which have value but don't require manufacturing more stuff.
On the post: Innovation Happens When Ideas Have Sex
Re: Re: Re: Resources
Okay.
But one of the links provided in this thread talks about legislative reform.
The Patent Reform Act - End Software Patents
On the post: Innovation Happens When Ideas Have Sex
Re: Resources
Since many in the software industry are skipping applying for the patents in the first place, seems like public opinion would likely support a change in legislation.
Some of the "abolish all IP protection" comments seem like tilting at windmills, so I think being pragmatic -- creating patent-free zones, correcting abuses, mounting legal campaigns (the way the EFF does), preventing questionable new legislation -- will produce actual results rather than just endless discussion.
Next >>