Actually, he does. Services such as Turntable are discounted because they represent a communication base that he is undermining. Also, you've actually ignored where people do communicate through music which is my link to the Johnny Cash Project.
In essence, he's shooting the forest for the trees. Here's his math problem:
Imagine, if you dare, a world in which everyone is sharing the music they are listening to with everyone. Say you have 300 Facebook friends (a modest number in Zuckerbergland) and say everyone is sharing a modest five songs a day. That’s 1,500 songs in your stream a day. That’s more than 95 hours of music being shared with you, daily. Do the math. Is this sharing, or is this spam? Does it have any meaning or is it a pointless flow of information?
It's as if he's never heard of the concept of filtering, which everyone does. I'm biased towards jazz and game music, ignoring country and rap. Does that mean neither get created for another audience? No, it does not. And now, there are more tools to help artists create music to be listened to and find an audience. That's what he's missing.
Sorry, but "meme" and "cultural exchange" do not compute, and certainly this is true in the area of utilitarial software
I notice that you mainly bring up software which is quite expensive for the consumer base. I was talking about culture in the sense that people use software to spread in-jokes or create new jokes or stories. But if you're talking about software there's two things that are occurring.
2) Open software alternatives that compete with the highly priced software.
As I'll say now, $800 for the newest Photoshop is absurd. Why do you think so many people download it? But the key here is the lock in effect. Someone using PS now will pay for the license, either through a company or individually, later on. That's the concept of sharing. The short term thinking that piracy hurts all sales discounts the fact that there are other benefits to sharing media and ideas on a global scale.
BTW, perhaps someone might be able to explain to me how the widesread dissemination of utilitarian things such as software is a "cultural" endeavor.
Ever heard of a meme? How about played a game that's popular with others in the community, where you and friends pass in-jokes about the game to others? I can tell you about lemons, but to burn your house down, but would you understand the reference?
Also, I find that article to be quite misleading:
Here is the sleight of hand and/or misunderstanding: “Music is a big part of who we are” does not automatically equate to “People love to share music.” Likewise, the fact that the music we most like feels part of our identity does not equate to the idea that we “express our identity to others by the music we listen to.”
Personally, I feel strongly attached to the music I love. And yet I do not use music to “express my identity” to others. I mostly use my words, my thoughts, and my relationships to do that. My music is pretty much kept out of it; there are few actual, real-life friends with whom I talk about music, and maybe only one or two whose musical taste I feel any connection to.
I think he ignores context here. People share music, movies, and games that they have a passion for. I personally like the puzzle game Portal 2 and make jokes with that as a source. Further, people do use music to communicate. Does that mean it's not a cultural effort? Should The Johnny Cash Project be discounted when it's had hundreds of people showing respect for a man that died, leaving his music to influence further generations?
It's amazing how he seems to dismiss the social music scene that's occurring. Of COURSE, people won't have time for all music. But everyone finds tributes, dedications, new music, and new art through all of the filters. The technologists are solving the problem of making communication easier. I don't have to go to Israel for the newest thing. I can find out about their music at the clicks of a button.
For example, if i take your car tonight and return it tomorrow, you still have it, but I've violated your exclusive right to drive your car.
Interesting. So how does this work for say... a Netflix account?
I want to watch a kung fu movie, while my family wants to watch a romance movie in another room. We both sign in to the same account. Should we both have to pay for wanting to watch separate products?
I don't think your "theft is piracy" argument has a lot going for it. Yes, copyright is supposed to give an exclusive right. But that right is quickly eroded by technology and only seems to bring about an artificial scarcity on the market. Can artists make money without trying to command this exclusive right to copy? The signs so far point to yes. It seems the more that copyright concerns are brought to the fore, the worse they get.
But in fact this is no different in principle from speeding on UK roads. Plenty of people clearly choose to ignore laws that don't suit them, providing they can't get caught. If they know there are speed cameras and/or police out, they toe the line. Give them a deserted camera free road at night and they (most people) drive well over the speed limit when it suits them.
Never mind that the speed limits aren't about safety and are more a cash grab by the government. That just won't do to discuss will it?
And I would contend that if you ask anyone who downloads illegally if they would also walk out of HMV with a CD inside their coat, they would start by saying "that's different, that's theft" but admit under cross examination that they simply feel more likely to be caught doing that.
Sure, everyone will construct a philosophical argument for it, but in truth, it's actually really simple most of the time
Well, let's see how those illegal downloads are still legal...
- "Download" from radio to a cassette
- "Download" from the TV to a VCR
- "Download" onto a TiVo and skip the commercials
So... If there are laws about downloading, how is downloading a TV show or music any different from these known ways of downloading? Somehow the "illegality" of what you're suggesting doesn't pass the smell test based on the concepts that people are already used to. People already feel that they can copy media for their convenience. Why should they feel guilt if the concepts of time shifting or watching something when it's convenient to them, the consumer, feels ingrained to them?
IFPI - digital pirates are more likely to buy music than average music goers.
In their annual Digital Music Report, IFPI states that file-sharers are half as likely to buy physical CDs than the average music buyer. Although the report is about digital music, they carefully avoid saying anything about file-sharers and digital sales. That would actually show a completely different picture as we will explain below.
The music group made this statement based on an IFPI-commissioned study that was executed by Jupiter research. Although IFPI refused to share the entire research report with TorrentFreak, we can conclude the following from the two pages that were published online.
Compared to music buyers, music sharers (pirates) are…
* 31% more likely to buy single tracks online.
* 33% more likely to buy music albums online.
* 100% more likely to pay for music subscription services.
* 60% more likely to pay for music on mobile phone.
These figures (as reported by the music industry) clearly show that file-sharers buy more digital music than the average music buyer. In fact, the group that makes up the music buyers category actually includes the buying file-sharers, so the difference between music sharers and non-sharing music buyers would be even more pronounced.
How can this be true and why was there no mention of this in the Digital Music Report? They must be spending less on digital music then, right? But again, this is not the case at all. On average, file-sharers actually spend more than non-sharing music buyers. At least that’s what Mark Mulligan, Vice President and Research Director at Forrester Research who conducted the study for IFPI told us.
And because you need more proof that pirates pay for music, let's look at Hadopi.
If piracy is a sampling and discovery tool for high spenders, then suppressing piracy could depress legal sales. If–as I’ll argue at more length in a subsequent post–we’re in a mostly zero-sum market in which consumers are maxed out on discretionary media expenditures, then enforcement won’t significantly expand but at best just cannibalize one media sector for another.
So, if people argue that piracy is a zero sum game, they've got it wrong. There's two articles that disagree and more research suggesting that piracy leads to more sales, not less.
The heck do you get your stats from? And depending on which state you're in, firearms are regulated fiercely depending on if you've ever kept out of trouble or not.
I'm not sure how you managed to so epically contradict yourself there, but indeed you did.
Hey Bucko, that's your sentence that you choose to say "everyone is respecting the law" then incorrectly state copyright is doing just that. Copyright is not doing anything to help society in its current iteration except limiting access to legal materials. But I'd love to see how you claim "it's only about rogue sites" or "it's only about foreign liability" when that's been show to be a lie over and over. But go ahead, you keep bringing it up, I'll calmly show the examples that you're lying.
Copyright is most certainly respected by the vast amount of people in the US.
Don't make me laugh. Obviously, you don't realize how many people don't buy games filled with DRM or how vilified Securom is in the game realm. How about how successful Ultralight is over Bluray or the DVD as people move to internet streaming? Better yet, let's make it simpler for you. The NFL tries to have regions set up that people can watch games for only certain teams. It's harder to watch the Atlanta Falcons in Los Angelos UNLESS they're playing the Raiders. The internet erases this barrier. Of all of the claims that maximalists make, to think that copyright is respected is pretty laughable when evidence suggests fair use exceptions do much better than copyright central industries.
That you choose to break the law does not make you correct on the issue or the majority.
Odds are, if the companies better served their customers instead of vilifying the entire internet, they'd do much better. Their strategy of trying to control everything is a lost cause. People have found great alternatives to what they're selling which includes, games, webisodes, music and art not MPAA or RIAA controlled. How long until the companies die? Dunno, but it's rapidly approaching time to embrace the internet instead of fighting the ghost that is piracy.
And through the power of youtube or google you can correct the radio's grievous error.
Also, I'm sure you won't have heard of the artists that I prefer such as Danny Baranowsky, Koji Kondo, Nobuo Uematsu, The Black Mages, zircon, or 1UP. Why do I care if she's a household name? She makes music I like, the same as the others I've mentioned.
Im not "assuming" anything. You would have to be profoundly obtuse and myopic to lack the reasoning ability or perception power to comprehend the impact that literally hundreds of billions of instances of piracy have had on content creators.
More money for artists, not labels? That's a win win.
The population is consuming more media than ever before, their appetite is insatiable. And the consumption of pirated content by people who either do not realize their actions are illegal or choose to pirate content knowingly is a big problem for the rights holders and their stake holders.
So people "progress the arts and sciences" and that's a problem?
Please tell me someone I would recognize that became famous without a record label
Grateful Dead sure did. And they did it through old school piracy, sharing of their performances... Fancy that...
You want them to accept piracy, except it is absolutely impossible to have real and true price discovery until there is some sort of standard piracy enforcement.
The MPAA has been fighting piracy since they lost control of studios through the Supreme Court. They've fought against the VCR, the mp3 player, the DVD recorder, the DeCSSS standard, regionalization, and now, the internet. There is no need for a standard piracy enforcement. It's time for them to accept the reality that no one can turn back the clock to the 1980s.
A free-for-all internet full of illegal activity was never going to go on forever; it's silly to believe such a thing was going to continue ad infinitum in a society; that's not how societies function.
Societies function if everyone can respect the laws followed. Copyright makes no sense and is not respected even within the US. Why should others take it seriously around the globe for two small trade industries?
It is impossible to take you seriously until you admit to that.
No, it's impossible to listen to an AC that writes this drivel when he doesn't understand the internet himself. If you can't figure out how to make money, stop competing and get a new job. Else, you look more and more like a Luddite.
The stake holders in these media companies are suffering economic loss because of the proliferation of wide spread piracy.
False. All evidence points to the fact that NONE of these media companies create platforms for their artists and look to shady business dealings to make more short term financial growth than they could with honest deals.
These labels invested heavily in recruiting talent and molding that talent into a marketable act. So when the labels cease to exist who will promote the artists, who will connect them with producers, who will hook them up with image consultants, who will "launch" their career?
Contrary to popular belief, the artists themselves are launching their own careers just fine. It's called Youtube, Soundcloud, Twitter, Topspin, Spotify, and that American concept of "ingenuity".
Universal isn't unwilling to "adapt", they are however unwilling to sit idly by while their catalog of music is illegally taken.
Your idea of adaptation is to give the music away for free, but how is the rights holder, in this case the label, supposed to get money for the music they OWN?
Simple, 50/50 split of all sales on platforms. Leaves them to make a lot of money and find money to promote instead of the shady business dealing they do now.
If you can create a compelling case study that shows how a rights holder can generate similar revenue by giving away the only thing it owns (the music itself) - please do so.
It's amazing that you have yet to hear about Amanda Palmer on this website along with Imogen Heap, Kevin Clark, NIN, Radiohead, OK Go... There is plenty on the site under the "case studies" branch. Hell, there's plenty that comes up regularly about how to make money using the internet and not enforcement.
There are plenty of legal ways to obtain content here in the US---
And SOPA is looking to criminalize every single one of them.
yet practically everyone on this blog still rips it off without paying.
How would you know? You're going through everyone's computer and checking their files? Next time, if you're going to troll, the least you could do is stop saying such outlandish claims such as this.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
Link
... Yeah, I'm a nerd that way. I remember that week because that was too funny NOT to mark.
On the post: Can Defenders Of SOPA Explain How You Define Taking Deliberate Action To Avoid Taking Action?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gee, that leaked cable about this was sure enlightening.
On the post: Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing
Re: Re: Re:
In essence, he's shooting the forest for the trees. Here's his math problem:
It's as if he's never heard of the concept of filtering, which everyone does. I'm biased towards jazz and game music, ignoring country and rap. Does that mean neither get created for another audience? No, it does not. And now, there are more tools to help artists create music to be listened to and find an audience. That's what he's missing.
Sorry, but "meme" and "cultural exchange" do not compute, and certainly this is true in the area of utilitarial software
I notice that you mainly bring up software which is quite expensive for the consumer base. I was talking about culture in the sense that people use software to spread in-jokes or create new jokes or stories. But if you're talking about software there's two things that are occurring.
1) Piracy, which happens to be the industry's best friend
2) Open software alternatives that compete with the highly priced software.
As I'll say now, $800 for the newest Photoshop is absurd. Why do you think so many people download it? But the key here is the lock in effect. Someone using PS now will pay for the license, either through a company or individually, later on. That's the concept of sharing. The short term thinking that piracy hurts all sales discounts the fact that there are other benefits to sharing media and ideas on a global scale.
On the post: Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing
Re:
Ever heard of a meme? How about played a game that's popular with others in the community, where you and friends pass in-jokes about the game to others? I can tell you about lemons, but to burn your house down, but would you understand the reference?
Also, I find that article to be quite misleading:
I think he ignores context here. People share music, movies, and games that they have a passion for. I personally like the puzzle game Portal 2 and make jokes with that as a source. Further, people do use music to communicate. Does that mean it's not a cultural effort? Should The Johnny Cash Project be discounted when it's had hundreds of people showing respect for a man that died, leaving his music to influence further generations?
It's amazing how he seems to dismiss the social music scene that's occurring. Of COURSE, people won't have time for all music. But everyone finds tributes, dedications, new music, and new art through all of the filters. The technologists are solving the problem of making communication easier. I don't have to go to Israel for the newest thing. I can find out about their music at the clicks of a button.
How surprising the gentleman doesn't see that.
On the post: Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing
Re:
Because Piracy is a crime when industry people introduce high prices for media goods, low incomes, and cheap digital technologies.
BTW, last I checked, you don't need permission to view media on TV. Why should the rules differ on the internet? Just curious.
On the post: Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing
Re:
Interesting. So how does this work for say... a Netflix account?
I want to watch a kung fu movie, while my family wants to watch a romance movie in another room. We both sign in to the same account. Should we both have to pay for wanting to watch separate products?
I don't think your "theft is piracy" argument has a lot going for it. Yes, copyright is supposed to give an exclusive right. But that right is quickly eroded by technology and only seems to bring about an artificial scarcity on the market. Can artists make money without trying to command this exclusive right to copy? The signs so far point to yes. It seems the more that copyright concerns are brought to the fore, the worse they get.
On the post: Content Industry Insists E-PARASITE Won't Rewrite DMCA, But Co-Author Of The Bill Admits That's The Plan
Re:
And why should Swedes follow a US law?
On the post: Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing
Re: Why people illegally download (IMHO)
Never mind that the speed limits aren't about safety and are more a cash grab by the government. That just won't do to discuss will it?
And I would contend that if you ask anyone who downloads illegally if they would also walk out of HMV with a CD inside their coat, they would start by saying "that's different, that's theft" but admit under cross examination that they simply feel more likely to be caught doing that.
Sure, everyone will construct a philosophical argument for it, but in truth, it's actually really simple most of the time
Well, let's see how those illegal downloads are still legal...
- "Download" from radio to a cassette
- "Download" from the TV to a VCR
- "Download" onto a TiVo and skip the commercials
So... If there are laws about downloading, how is downloading a TV show or music any different from these known ways of downloading? Somehow the "illegality" of what you're suggesting doesn't pass the smell test based on the concepts that people are already used to. People already feel that they can copy media for their convenience. Why should they feel guilt if the concepts of time shifting or watching something when it's convenient to them, the consumer, feels ingrained to them?
On the post: Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing
Re: Every Time You Say “Sharing” Instead Of “Stealing” ...
On the post: Believing Legacy Gatekeepers Will Fail To Adapt Is Not The Same As Wanting Them To Fail
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
IFPI - digital pirates are more likely to buy music than average music goers.
And because you need more proof that pirates pay for music, let's look at Hadopi.
If piracy is a sampling and discovery tool for high spenders, then suppressing piracy could depress legal sales. If–as I’ll argue at more length in a subsequent post–we’re in a mostly zero-sum market in which consumers are maxed out on discretionary media expenditures, then enforcement won’t significantly expand but at best just cannibalize one media sector for another.
So, if people argue that piracy is a zero sum game, they've got it wrong. There's two articles that disagree and more research suggesting that piracy leads to more sales, not less.
On the post: Believing Legacy Gatekeepers Will Fail To Adapt Is Not The Same As Wanting Them To Fail
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Can Defenders Of SOPA Explain How You Define Taking Deliberate Action To Avoid Taking Action?
Re:
On the post: Believing Legacy Gatekeepers Will Fail To Adapt Is Not The Same As Wanting Them To Fail
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How many times do people have to debunk their BS?
On the post: Believing Legacy Gatekeepers Will Fail To Adapt Is Not The Same As Wanting Them To Fail
Re: Re: Re:
Hey Bucko, that's your sentence that you choose to say "everyone is respecting the law" then incorrectly state copyright is doing just that. Copyright is not doing anything to help society in its current iteration except limiting access to legal materials. But I'd love to see how you claim "it's only about rogue sites" or "it's only about foreign liability" when that's been show to be a lie over and over. But go ahead, you keep bringing it up, I'll calmly show the examples that you're lying.
Copyright is most certainly respected by the vast amount of people in the US.
Don't make me laugh. Obviously, you don't realize how many people don't buy games filled with DRM or how vilified Securom is in the game realm. How about how successful Ultralight is over Bluray or the DVD as people move to internet streaming? Better yet, let's make it simpler for you. The NFL tries to have regions set up that people can watch games for only certain teams. It's harder to watch the Atlanta Falcons in Los Angelos UNLESS they're playing the Raiders. The internet erases this barrier. Of all of the claims that maximalists make, to think that copyright is respected is pretty laughable when evidence suggests fair use exceptions do much better than copyright central industries.
That you choose to break the law does not make you correct on the issue or the majority.
Odds are, if the companies better served their customers instead of vilifying the entire internet, they'd do much better. Their strategy of trying to control everything is a lost cause. People have found great alternatives to what they're selling which includes, games, webisodes, music and art not MPAA or RIAA controlled. How long until the companies die? Dunno, but it's rapidly approaching time to embrace the internet instead of fighting the ghost that is piracy.
On the post: And Then There Were Three: Bye, Bye EMI
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about their stake holders
Danny Baranowsky
Koji Kondo - mainly known for Super Mario Bros, and Zelda music
Nobuo Uematsu - Former Square Enix composer known for his music in Final Fantasy.
The Black Mages - Known for remixing Nobuo Uematsu's work.
zircon - known for game remixes
I'd say the Epic Meal time dubstep is a bit much. So here's the EMT soundtrack instead
Hope you like them.
On the post: And Then There Were Three: Bye, Bye EMI
Re: Re: Re: What about their stake holders
Also, I'm sure you won't have heard of the artists that I prefer such as Danny Baranowsky, Koji Kondo, Nobuo Uematsu, The Black Mages, zircon, or 1UP. Why do I care if she's a household name? She makes music I like, the same as the others I've mentioned.
On the post: And Then There Were Three: Bye, Bye EMI
Re: Re: Re: What about their stake holders
More money for artists, not labels? That's a win win.
The population is consuming more media than ever before, their appetite is insatiable. And the consumption of pirated content by people who either do not realize their actions are illegal or choose to pirate content knowingly is a big problem for the rights holders and their stake holders.
So people "progress the arts and sciences" and that's a problem?
Please tell me someone I would recognize that became famous without a record label
Grateful Dead sure did. And they did it through old school piracy, sharing of their performances... Fancy that...
On the post: Believing Legacy Gatekeepers Will Fail To Adapt Is Not The Same As Wanting Them To Fail
Re:
The MPAA has been fighting piracy since they lost control of studios through the Supreme Court. They've fought against the VCR, the mp3 player, the DVD recorder, the DeCSSS standard, regionalization, and now, the internet. There is no need for a standard piracy enforcement. It's time for them to accept the reality that no one can turn back the clock to the 1980s.
A free-for-all internet full of illegal activity was never going to go on forever; it's silly to believe such a thing was going to continue ad infinitum in a society; that's not how societies function.
Societies function if everyone can respect the laws followed. Copyright makes no sense and is not respected even within the US. Why should others take it seriously around the globe for two small trade industries?
It is impossible to take you seriously until you admit to that.
No, it's impossible to listen to an AC that writes this drivel when he doesn't understand the internet himself. If you can't figure out how to make money, stop competing and get a new job. Else, you look more and more like a Luddite.
On the post: And Then There Were Three: Bye, Bye EMI
Re: What about their stake holders
False. All evidence points to the fact that NONE of these media companies create platforms for their artists and look to shady business dealings to make more short term financial growth than they could with honest deals.
These labels invested heavily in recruiting talent and molding that talent into a marketable act. So when the labels cease to exist who will promote the artists, who will connect them with producers, who will hook them up with image consultants, who will "launch" their career?
Contrary to popular belief, the artists themselves are launching their own careers just fine. It's called Youtube, Soundcloud, Twitter, Topspin, Spotify, and that American concept of "ingenuity".
Universal isn't unwilling to "adapt", they are however unwilling to sit idly by while their catalog of music is illegally taken.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jun/08/wpp-groupm-sir-martin-sorrell Then why has Universal made a blacklist? Also, why is Universal blacklisting 50 Cent's website?
Your idea of adaptation is to give the music away for free, but how is the rights holder, in this case the label, supposed to get money for the music they OWN?
Simple, 50/50 split of all sales on platforms. Leaves them to make a lot of money and find money to promote instead of the shady business dealing they do now.
If you can create a compelling case study that shows how a rights holder can generate similar revenue by giving away the only thing it owns (the music itself) - please do so.
It's amazing that you have yet to hear about Amanda Palmer on this website along with Imogen Heap, Kevin Clark, NIN, Radiohead, OK Go... There is plenty on the site under the "case studies" branch. Hell, there's plenty that comes up regularly about how to make money using the internet and not enforcement.
On the post: SOPA Will Have Serious Implications For Sports Fans And Blogs
Re: Re:
And SOPA is looking to criminalize every single one of them.
yet practically everyone on this blog still rips it off without paying.
How would you know? You're going through everyone's computer and checking their files? Next time, if you're going to troll, the least you could do is stop saying such outlandish claims such as this.
Next >>