Don't be too hard on these artists. They are very used to the parasitic relationship they have with their labels and are being told how bad the internet is for music.
It's not really their fault that they don't have a clue how music is shared now or how quickly they fall off the radar.
This is for AC/DC, Kid Rock and any other hold outs.
Consumer wants music. Consumer thinks of AC/DC song he likes. Consumer goes to iTunes to buy song. Song isn't there so consumer looks on Spotify. Song isn't there so consumer gives up and thinks of a song from another band and looks on iTunes. Song is there, consumer buys.
So much is now available to the consumer on iTunes and Spotify that consumer quickly forgets about the music that isn't available.
Re: So what you're saying is: copyright isn't a big deal,
ootb, get a grip on reality. Your argument is about a decade behind the present.
The digital age dawned and the distribution network for digital media merged with the communications network. You cannot persist in this delusion that "some users won't pay" is destroying the ecosystem.
It has always been that way.
Radio and Television proved that lots of users simply won't pay. That is why the users bought the high end hardware. They feel they have paid and it's up to the content creators to work out with the broadcasters how to monetize the content.
What screws the system up isn't the unwillingness of the users to buy, it's the greed of the gatekeepers and their overvaluing of their precious content. It's really not worth what they think it is any more, so it's time to trade those dollars for trillions of digital dimes.
Re: Horsemanure-- all law suits are business decisions
Yeah bob, cuz piracy is killing porn.
The only thing you got right is that extorting cash from alleged pirates is a business model.
That said, let's step away from copyright and look at patents for a moment. Patent trolling is a business, and the latest figures show that it's grown larger than the entire music industry.
Methinks the RIAA and friends need to sue the customers a lot less and think about buying up some patents and then sue bigger fish. If you're going to abuse the courts, might as well do it right.
“If you buy a hundred-foot lot in the middle of Manhattan, you’re not required to develop it…Companies have the right to protect their IP dollars.”
This is the biggest difference between physical property and IP. Scarcity creates value. If you buy a lot in Manhattan and decide not to develop on it for 20 years, you end up with a lot of money due to appreciation. If you do nothing with a patent for 20 years, it expires and has almost no monetary value.
Patents are not a right to withhold innovation from the world, they are a right to a limited monopoly in EXCHANGE for sharing your invention with the public.
Maybe we should start treating physical property like IP, so anyone should be allowed to pay a license fee that allows them access to a others' homes.
The really sad thing about this is that the legacy industry can obviously see that lyric sites are popular and in demand and they have NOT tried to monetize a site of their own.
Bleeding lyric sites and services like Spotify is incredibly stupid when they own the "product" and could dominate the market.
The problem is greed. Consumers want low priced, convenient services and the industry wants the old CD revenue. They can't seem to grasp that hundreds of billions of digital dimes are just the same as millions of dollars.
They are going to sue themselves into irrelevance. smh
This may make copyright maximalists quite happy. I actually agree that musicians should get licenses for music on YouTube and similar services.
With that said, I'm not sure how it should be set other than an arbitrary $.99 (seems like a decent number). The problem with the industry is that it seems to believe that the internet is like TV or Movies and that it's entitled to some insane license for music put on non-commercial video.
I should add that this music license should not be imposed on videos posted that just happen to have music playing in the background.
I'm guessing that the reason these licensing deals have always been fees, rather than a percentage of net revenue, is that all the players in the field have similar accounting practices that always show zero profits.
This article poses the question, Can MoviePass turn a profit?
I guess I'm not sure if MoviePass is owned by a group of theathers or not.
If MoviePass only contracts with theaters then I guess the question of profit depends on the contract with the theaters. If MoviePass gets a guaranteed % of the price they charge for the subscription, then it doesn't matter if the subscriber goes to 1 movie or 100 movies. If MoviePass' revenue declines as the subscribers uses the service, then it's doubtful they can profit, but that doesn't sound like a smart way to contract a deal with theaters.
I guess I'm confused because the article focuses on the loss at theathers which only impacts MoviePass if the theaters feel they are losing out on the deal and cancel their contracts with MoviePass.
Why all the focus on giving up liberties to prevent terrorism? Murder in the US over the past 10 years, accounts for about 100x more deaths than terrorism. If giving up liberties wasn't necessary to combat murder then why is it needed in the "war on terror".
Makes me laugh every time I see or hear "war on terror".
Phone locking is probably one of the best price fixing scams EVER. It allows for the manufacturers of mobile phones to artificially inflate the price of their phones by having the carriers subsidize the bulk of the cost and then milk the consumer with lengthy contracts.
Apple highlights this. If you look at the price of an iPhone 5 in the UK £799 and the cost of the top iPad with mobile £659, you have to ask; in what world does this make sense?
The price of phones would drop like a stone if that price fixing scam were ever to end.
Ok let's assume 88% of homemade porn finds its way to porno sites. Is that bad because it's infringing copyrights? Is that bad because it's crappy porn? Is that bad because no one could find the other 12% ?
It seems that the article is upset about infringement. Damn you porn pirates. I want to make sure the actors are getting paid!!!
"I fear there is no way back, this will get worse, extensions to copyright making it impossible to do anything or require a lawyer to do so."
You simply don't understand how society works. If it worked the way you are thinking then piracy would have been stomped out by now. In fact, it's quite the opposite to the way you think. We share MORE now and will keep sharing more regardless of what the lawyers and AA's think.
While I'm here, let's finally bury the digital dimes thing. If people buy stuff, they expect to own it. That increases VALUE. If people buy stuff and they don't own it, they will be ok with that if it costs A LOT less.
Example. If I purchase a book, I don't mind paying $7 for the paperback which I can keep, resell, or burn. If I buy an ebook from Amazon that can be taken from me at any time and I don't really own, then that is only worth $.10 to me. Guess what Amazon, you can keep selling me that ebook for years at that price. $.10 for 30 day access anyone?
As the attorneys representing Voltron, you are ordered to cease and desist any future commenting in this style. A DMCA take down notice will be issued to the TechDirt administrator.
Thank you for your cooperation in advance. You may settle this misunderstanding for $3,000 or face statutory damages of up to $150,000.
I'm not sure you read the article or comprehended it. There is no red herring.
The article explains that the reason there was no copy protection on CDs, is because there was not enough storage space in the consumer world to make copying feasible. Hard disk space is not relevant to people enjoying music, but it was relevant when deciding whether or not to release a product that could be easily copied. If the cost of the copy is several times that of just buying a new original, then there is no need to worry about copying.
"Legalization of free, non-commercial copying of all creative works online"
This one looks simple enough, but is terribly complex. I don't see my dog dancing to the latest Flo' Rida single on youtube as a commercial endeavor. But if it has a Pedigree advert and gets 3 million hits then suddenly I'm a criminal.
The problem with this is that there are so many opportunities to monetize content online that the content creators cannot possibly capitalize on most of them and there are many people that will accidentally make cash off other's content without being a commercial enterprise.
To me simplistic, the definition of commercial in this context needs to specify a profit threshold.
Re: Re: Re: LOL So thats what its like to live on Mt. Bullshit
"Actually, it's telling here: Nobody wants to risk the capital. It sums up very well what label money has done in the past, and with new indie acts, isn't happening now.
There is this amazing system in existence called concert promoters. They take the risk, they book the acts, they book the venues, and they profit when it works."
Let's jump right in and tear this apart properly. First of all you ignore the fact that this is a huge accomplishment for a small band that no label would take seriously. This story is about the next generation of artists that would not have stood a chance under the older "amazing" system. Yes there are concert promoters who have to be paid in advance by the band, could this band afford to hire promoters to do a UK tour of one venue? Is there a concert promoter who would promote a single venue UK tour for a crowd of hundreds?
Then you wrap it all up by saying that the same band would be better off doing a small tour, adding expenses and going in blind with no idea if there are enough fans or where they are. Risky? Very Reward? Very Unlikely. See how that works? I make the opposite conclusion you made and it is just as likely to be correct. You seem to think guessing is efficient business.
You seem to think the notion of pre-paying is new. That is pretty much how all shows work. People hear who is coming and pay in advance, especially if its not general admission.
The AMAZING thing about the old system is that it is designed to siphon as much money as possible from the artist that has generated all the fans who want to pay.
On the post: AC/DC And Kid Rock Finally Realize That Selling Tracks Online Is Probably A Good Idea
RIAA Hardliners
It's not really their fault that they don't have a clue how music is shared now or how quickly they fall off the radar.
This is for AC/DC, Kid Rock and any other hold outs.
Consumer wants music. Consumer thinks of AC/DC song he likes. Consumer goes to iTunes to buy song. Song isn't there so consumer looks on Spotify. Song isn't there so consumer gives up and thinks of a song from another band and looks on iTunes. Song is there, consumer buys.
So much is now available to the consumer on iTunes and Spotify that consumer quickly forgets about the music that isn't available.
On the post: That Was Fast: Hollywood Already Browbeat The Republicans Into Retracting Report On Copyright Reform
Re:
The RSC was DEFINITELY shown numbers. They were shown the amounts of the cancelled campaign donations, and they definitely believed it.
On the post: Yet Another Judge Blasts Copyright Trolling Operation
Re: So what you're saying is: copyright isn't a big deal,
The digital age dawned and the distribution network for digital media merged with the communications network. You cannot persist in this delusion that "some users won't pay" is destroying the ecosystem.
It has always been that way.
Radio and Television proved that lots of users simply won't pay. That is why the users bought the high end hardware. They feel they have paid and it's up to the content creators to work out with the broadcasters how to monetize the content.
What screws the system up isn't the unwillingness of the users to buy, it's the greed of the gatekeepers and their overvaluing of their precious content. It's really not worth what they think it is any more, so it's time to trade those dollars for trillions of digital dimes.
On the post: Yet Another Judge Blasts Copyright Trolling Operation
Re: Horsemanure-- all law suits are business decisions
The only thing you got right is that extorting cash from alleged pirates is a business model.
That said, let's step away from copyright and look at patents for a moment. Patent trolling is a business, and the latest figures show that it's grown larger than the entire music industry.
Methinks the RIAA and friends need to sue the customers a lot less and think about buying up some patents and then sue bigger fish. If you're going to abuse the courts, might as well do it right.
On the post: Meet The Patent Troll Suing Hundreds Of Companies For Encrypting Web Traffic
Note the difference
This is the biggest difference between physical property and IP. Scarcity creates value. If you buy a lot in Manhattan and decide not to develop on it for 20 years, you end up with a lot of money due to appreciation. If you do nothing with a patent for 20 years, it expires and has almost no monetary value.
Patents are not a right to withhold innovation from the world, they are a right to a limited monopoly in EXCHANGE for sharing your invention with the public.
Maybe we should start treating physical property like IP, so anyone should be allowed to pay a license fee that allows them access to a others' homes.
On the post: $6.6 Million Ruling Against Lyrics Site, Once Again, Shows How Short Sighted Music Industry Is
The real tragedy
Bleeding lyric sites and services like Spotify is incredibly stupid when they own the "product" and could dominate the market.
The problem is greed. Consumers want low priced, convenient services and the industry wants the old CD revenue. They can't seem to grasp that hundreds of billions of digital dimes are just the same as millions of dollars.
They are going to sue themselves into irrelevance. smh
On the post: Teen Hacker Banned From The Internet For Six Years
Re: Re: Re: No, that's not extreme...
I'm guessing he was on a prepaid smartphone on his way home from court.
On the post: Viral Video Of 9-Year-Old Girl Football Star... Taken Down Because Of Music
Valid Point
With that said, I'm not sure how it should be set other than an arbitrary $.99 (seems like a decent number). The problem with the industry is that it seems to believe that the internet is like TV or Movies and that it's entitled to some insane license for music put on non-commercial video.
I should add that this music license should not be imposed on videos posted that just happen to have music playing in the background.
I'm guessing that the reason these licensing deals have always been fees, rather than a percentage of net revenue, is that all the players in the field have similar accounting practices that always show zero profits.
On the post: Kink.com Owner Inoculating Against Piracy By Selling The Scarce
Re: Huh?
Guess I am the 1%
On the post: Flat World Knowledge No Longer To Offer Free Texts, Claims It's More 'Fair'
LMAO
Seems legit.
On the post: MoviePass Offers 'Unlimited' Movie Tickets For $29.99 A Month -- But Can It Ever Hope To Turn A Profit?
I'm unclear on the economics
I guess I'm not sure if MoviePass is owned by a group of theathers or not.
If MoviePass only contracts with theaters then I guess the question of profit depends on the contract with the theaters. If MoviePass gets a guaranteed % of the price they charge for the subscription, then it doesn't matter if the subscriber goes to 1 movie or 100 movies. If MoviePass' revenue declines as the subscribers uses the service, then it's doubtful they can profit, but that doesn't sound like a smart way to contract a deal with theaters.
I guess I'm confused because the article focuses on the loss at theathers which only impacts MoviePass if the theaters feel they are losing out on the deal and cancel their contracts with MoviePass.
On the post: Washington Post: Yes, We Need To Give Up Liberty For Security
Why Terrorism?
Makes me laugh every time I see or hear "war on terror".
On the post: DMCA Exemptions Announced; Exemption For DVD Ripping Rejected; Phone Unlocking Going Away
Phone Locking Scam
Apple highlights this. If you look at the price of an iPhone 5 in the UK £799 and the cost of the top iPad with mobile £659, you have to ask; in what world does this make sense?
The price of phones would drop like a stone if that price fixing scam were ever to end.
On the post: Statistical Stupidity: 95% Of All Lazy Journalists Believe That 88% Of All Homemade Porn Ends Up Online
I'm unclear on the point
It seems that the article is upset about infringement. Damn you porn pirates. I want to make sure the actors are getting paid!!!
On the post: EU & US Negotiators Looking To Hold Blind & Deaf Access Rights Hostage To Get A New ACTA/SOPA
Re: Not really and off on a tangent
You simply don't understand how society works. If it worked the way you are thinking then piracy would have been stomped out by now. In fact, it's quite the opposite to the way you think. We share MORE now and will keep sharing more regardless of what the lawyers and AA's think.
While I'm here, let's finally bury the digital dimes thing. If people buy stuff, they expect to own it. That increases VALUE. If people buy stuff and they don't own it, they will be ok with that if it costs A LOT less.
Example. If I purchase a book, I don't mind paying $7 for the paperback which I can keep, resell, or burn. If I buy an ebook from Amazon that can be taken from me at any time and I don't really own, then that is only worth $.10 to me. Guess what Amazon, you can keep selling me that ebook for years at that price. $.10 for 30 day access anyone?
Ummmm can I patent that business model?
On the post: US Steadfast In Its Stand For Publishers Against The Disabled
Re:
As the attorneys representing Voltron, you are ordered to cease and desist any future commenting in this style. A DMCA take down notice will be issued to the TechDirt administrator.
Thank you for your cooperation in advance. You may settle this misunderstanding for $3,000 or face statutory damages of up to $150,000.
Have a nice day.
The Law firm of Dewey, Cheatum, & How
On the post: 30 Years Of The CD, Of Digital Piracy, And Of Music Industry Cluelessness
Re: Huh ???
The article explains that the reason there was no copy protection on CDs, is because there was not enough storage space in the consumer world to make copying feasible. Hard disk space is not relevant to people enjoying music, but it was relevant when deciding whether or not to release a product that could be easily copied. If the cost of the copy is several times that of just buying a new original, then there is no need to worry about copying.
On the post: Why The Theory Of 'Tarnishment' Doesn't Make Sense For Trademark Law
I'm ruined
On the post: German Pirate Party Makes Some Shockingly Unshocking Proposals For Copyright Reform
Tricky language
This one looks simple enough, but is terribly complex. I don't see my dog dancing to the latest Flo' Rida single on youtube as a commercial endeavor. But if it has a Pedigree advert and gets 3 million hits then suddenly I'm a criminal.
The problem with this is that there are so many opportunities to monetize content online that the content creators cannot possibly capitalize on most of them and there are many people that will accidentally make cash off other's content without being a commercial enterprise.
To me simplistic, the definition of commercial in this context needs to specify a profit threshold.
On the post: Songkick Helps Fans Bring Their Favorite Musician To London
Re: Re: Re: LOL So thats what its like to live on Mt. Bullshit
There is this amazing system in existence called concert promoters. They take the risk, they book the acts, they book the venues, and they profit when it works."
Let's jump right in and tear this apart properly. First of all you ignore the fact that this is a huge accomplishment for a small band that no label would take seriously. This story is about the next generation of artists that would not have stood a chance under the older "amazing" system. Yes there are concert promoters who have to be paid in advance by the band, could this band afford to hire promoters to do a UK tour of one venue? Is there a concert promoter who would promote a single venue UK tour for a crowd of hundreds?
Then you wrap it all up by saying that the same band would be better off doing a small tour, adding expenses and going in blind with no idea if there are enough fans or where they are. Risky? Very Reward? Very Unlikely. See how that works? I make the opposite conclusion you made and it is just as likely to be correct. You seem to think guessing is efficient business.
You seem to think the notion of pre-paying is new. That is pretty much how all shows work. People hear who is coming and pay in advance, especially if its not general admission.
The AMAZING thing about the old system is that it is designed to siphon as much money as possible from the artist that has generated all the fans who want to pay.
Next >>