worst of all, this infringement wasn't for personal use, this was blatantly commercial infringement.
I hope they either punish these commercial pirates to the full extent of the law (thus ending the recession in Canada, those 60 billion dollars would go far) or realize how truly absurd the existing laws are and change them.
of course, this is Canada, with the conservatives currently in power, so they will just cave to foreign pressure and screw the people to support the foreign business.
If content is being made available to be streamed, I don't see how that is any different than content being made available to be downloaded.
either way, the user is granted access to that media.
plus, streamed content is extremely easy to download, just let it load, go to your /tmp folder, and copy the video to another folder, and thats it!
Streaming is downloading, it's just deleted by your browser when you leave the page.
(note: I'm not defending the media's companies position and saying that streaming media is 'wrong', I'm just saying that I don't see a difference between the two)
Re: Michael Long
"If all you want is a collection of bits, I'll sell you a hard drive full of randomized sectors. But you don't want "bits". You want bits that have been organized into music and movies and books and software."
Your argument misses the point entirely.
From a computer's point of view, it doesn't matter if the data is random noise, or the most expensive content ever produced. Both can be copied at zero cost.
I can't walk into a store, pick up a DVD, click Ctrl+C and be on my way.
Physical goods are finite. Digital goods are infinite.
The jump to digital content changed everything, except their business model, and that business model is now colliding with reality.
I'm not arguing this is a good thing. For some people this situation really sucks. I'm arguing that this is reality. Content is being copied. Freely. Rather than having their business adapt and meet the desires of their customers, they're trying to force the world to adapt to their business model. I believe that approach is backwards.
That is my argument.
Feel free to set up another straw man and knock it down if you wish, or, show me why my belief is mistaken.
When Stewart Brand first made his now famous quote, he included a second sentence that is often ignored today.
"Information Wants To Be Free. Information also wants to be expensive. ... That tension will not go away"
If I have an object, and I give you that object, I no longer have it. it's a zero-sum situation, for one to gain, another must lose. Information is not at all like that. Bits are not atoms. But people want to treat them as if they were.
Secrets want to be told, and they quickly snowball out of control. Trying to contain them is like pushing water uphill with a stick. Its a losing battle, but not everyone has figured that out yet.
The existence of so many of these micro stock photography sites makes it very clear that a large segment of the market was not having their demands met by photographers.
Don't be angry that someone is better able to serve your clients. Offer them better services!
Focus on services micro stock sits can not offer. You can't exactly get family portraits, wedding photos, Christmas photos, etc. from a stock site. focus on that stuff!
Offer generic stock photography through your site at super low prices, so if you are making a wedding album, for example, you can throw in a few extras for a small fee.
But most importantly: be friendly.
Once your photos are 'good enough' the biggest thing is, "are people comfortable around me?", "do they want to spend time with me?" My photos are no better than the ones they could get from any other photographer in the area, but I'm friendly, and familiar.
Most of my photo gigs come from a very small group of repeat customers, and I offer them the one thing micro-stock sites can not: photos of them.
"The Masnick line is -naturally- that they should give away the stories they have invested so much in, and use that to advertise something else, a position that assumes that advertising is so efficient that effort and money devoted to advertising will always pay off, the reality is very different"
No, the Masnick line is that if they put up pay walls, readers will go elsewhere, where news is still free.
The papers are on a slow, steady decline today, but forcing readers to pay will put the papers into a nosedive.
And "investing in stories" means sending a reporter to a location to experience a situation first hand, interviewing multiple people, doing research, and commenting on the situation. Few papers do this today.
Now, papers wait for the story to come to them, hit record, then transcribe what they have. This is not reporting, this is gossip and press releases masquerading as reporting; and from my perspective, as a consumer of 'news', it is not worth paying for.
"He made this statement while suggesting that the US needs to follow France in kicking people off the internet for file sharing accusations (not convictions)."
ISPs will be kicking users off the internet...
...so, should I start investing in companies involved in wireless mesh networking?
get enough people on board, and we will have our own internet, no more monthly fees.
gotta love how the internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it.
Christopher:
"I would propose: Copyright plus zero years after death, period. Heck, 30 years or death, whichever comes first. If it's truly a form of welfare or pension, make it work like a pension plan, expire the time or split total to a beneficiary after death."
There is a big problem with something like this.
Say someone wants to use a work that is still under copyright, but they don't want to wait for it to enter the public domain, and they don't want to pay a fee for permission to use the work. Well, the poor artist/copyright owner may be the victim up some kind of 'unfortunate incident' which 'tragically' takes their life, and bingo! the work in question is instantly public domain!
copyright that lasts 25 years after date of publication, regardless of the artists life-span solves this potential problem.
I hate to sound like I'm coming to Walmart's defence on the issue, but since they are the cheapest place around that prints on fuji crystal archive, I get most of my photo printing done there, and I never run into these problems. I just show up, use the self-serve machines, and send in my print order, and I've never had a problem with getting it printed.
And I am a semi-professional photographer!
I've recently gone in with 600 photos of kids sitting on Santa's knee, obviously they were all taken on a set, under professional lighting, and I've gotten them all printed effortlessly.
Its easy to forget how freaken huge walmart is, how many employees they have, and how stupid people can be. eventually, someone associated with the company will do something dumb.
this is why I only tweet about a vacation until after I've returned home. and why i frequently don't post anything for several days at a time, so the really dedicated thieves can't find a correlation between my absence from the social networks and vacationing.
Having nothing to tweet about has nothing to do with it... :'(
Seriously though, any technology can be used for good, or for other purposes, and users really need to be more careful about what they post. People forget things; the internet does not.
haven't seen it, and after reading about his reaction to enthusiastic fans, i don't plan on seeing it anytime soon.
I'll just wait 'till its on TV, where I can also watch the movie for free. But that's a completely different kind of 'watch it for free', because by the time it hits TV, the hype will be dead and I wont want to buy the DVD at that point.
While I agree with most of what Tom says in this video, I think he got one very minor thing wrong.
Good song writing is objective? I disagree, I believe good song writing is subjective.
Blink 182 might be one person's favourite band, but their music is not to my taste. I don't enjoy their music, but my opinion says nothing about their songwriting.
I'm not a fan of and R&B or hip-hop, either. I love nine inch nails and skinny puppy, yet many dismiss those acts as producers of noise, not music.
If good songwriting were an objective quality of music, people would not centre around a certain genre or style; tastes would be far more eclectic.
other than that one minor nitpick, I agree with just about everything said, and it is fantastic to hear that another big name act 'gets it'.
on every Korean DVD player, the words read "Play", "Stop/Eject", "Menu", etc.
The buttons on a Korean cellphone say "Talk", "End", etc.
even in tiny Korean villages far away from foreigner-friendly Seoul are full of storefronts written in English. Sometimes, but not always there is a small Korean translation in the bottom corner. (English is very cool and trendy)
many of the channels broadcast in English, with subtitles, not dubbing. They learn English in elementary and middle school. In high school, they must also learn either German or French. Even if they can't speak English, the Latin alphabet is drilled into them from an early age, and is constantly reinforced.
With many things relating to technology, they use the English word, only expressed in Korean characters "kom-pyu-taw" "down-loh-du" "upu loh-du "bi-de-yo"
believe me, they can figure out "youtube.com" or "youtube.ca"
it's very frustrating, because when I lived there, I was able to upload my own videos without any problems, but now, many of the friends I made while over there are unable to respond to my videos because of these stupid laws. when these laws block facebook, another communication channel will be cut off.
This law is having social consequences, and it sucks.
He is arguing that things used to follow a set social script, and the courtship process was static and predictable (we can call this "boring").
Now courtship is dynamic and unexpected (or "exciting").
And this is a bad thing?
sorry Grandpa, I'm not all that interested in doing things your way.
Authors do have it tougher than musicians, I think. But they are not without options.
The author could do public readings from his book, there could be a nominal cover charge to hear the author speak, but admission is free with a copy of the authors book. (reason to buy?)
a tiered approach.
free PDFs/audiobooks for casual fans
really nice leather-bound hardcovers for book lovers
releasing only the 1st 1/4 of the book for free on-line, if fans want the rest, they gotta buy it.
record an abridged audiobook and distribute it freely, making sure the audience knows that if they want the real thing, buy the hardcover.
I'm sure there are much better ideas out there, but it's the authors responsability to come up with something that appeals to their own, unique audience.
If a creator or publisher clings to the old way of doing something well after a much better way has been introduced, they deserve to fail.
It's called 'the free market'
The Toronto copy shop article hits close to home.
The photo in the article shows a building which used to house 2 competing copy shops that I used for nearly all my University textbooks. (only one remains in business today-and I mean that literally, I walked past this building TODAY)
In my first year of University (2002) My school (OCAD) had a deal with 'Copy Shop A' to photocopy course readers, since dedicated textbooks did not exist for my program.
The cost was about $14.50 for a 100 page photocopied course reader.
Sometime during my second year, the shop was busted for copying without permission, and not paying a copyright clearance fee, so we had to use 'Copy Shop B' which DID pay the copyright clearance fee.
guess how much a photocopied textbook of roughly equal length cost in year two?
$45.95
in year 3, the cost rose to $92.00 for a 100 page photocopied course reader.
This is the message that Access Copyright sent out to the students of the University of Toronto, Ryerson, and the Ontario College of Art and Design:
Because of us, your textbook costs have gone from $14.50 to $92.00.
By year four, less than half of the students in one of my classes had purchased the textbook. most people would get a group of friends together in the library, take the copy the library had on file, and make multiple copies of that, which worked out to being about half the cost of going legit.
They certainly weren't winning anyone over with their actions.
Since graduating in 2006, my school has moved on to having its own copy shop/bookstore, so I have no idea what the course reader situation is today.
Jason:
"They will LOSE money if they win this. If they eliminate samples or increase the price, the well sell far less music and not more.
Also, if the only way to hear samples of music is to download it illegally, they'll have shot themselves in both feet."
I predict this is their plan. When everyone stops buying music because of these stupid royalty requirements, the industry will blame piracy for their failure and demand even harsher laws.
This kind of stuff infuriates me, because I am an artist, and it pisses me off to see these guys giving creative people a bad name. We're not lazy, greedy people, we are hard working people trying to scrape by on well under minimum wage.
I can sympathize with these people. I want more money, too; but I understand that demanding money for something that is available for free is foolish. It may not be desirable; in fact, from the artists point of view, its devastating. But, it is reality.
Digital content is free, and supplies are infinite. Wishing that it wasn't isn't going to change things. Deal with it.
On the post: Major Labels Accused Of $6 Billion Worth Of Copyright Infringement In Canada
I hope they either punish these commercial pirates to the full extent of the law (thus ending the recession in Canada, those 60 billion dollars would go far) or realize how truly absurd the existing laws are and change them.
of course, this is Canada, with the conservatives currently in power, so they will just cave to foreign pressure and screw the people to support the foreign business.
On the post: Is Streaming Infringing Content Still Considered Piracy?
either way, the user is granted access to that media.
plus, streamed content is extremely easy to download, just let it load, go to your /tmp folder, and copy the video to another folder, and thats it!
Streaming is downloading, it's just deleted by your browser when you leave the page.
(note: I'm not defending the media's companies position and saying that streaming media is 'wrong', I'm just saying that I don't see a difference between the two)
On the post: That Mythical 'Information Wants To Be Free' Crowd
Re: Re: Bits
"If all you want is a collection of bits, I'll sell you a hard drive full of randomized sectors. But you don't want "bits". You want bits that have been organized into music and movies and books and software."
Your argument misses the point entirely.
From a computer's point of view, it doesn't matter if the data is random noise, or the most expensive content ever produced. Both can be copied at zero cost.
I can't walk into a store, pick up a DVD, click Ctrl+C and be on my way.
Physical goods are finite. Digital goods are infinite.
The jump to digital content changed everything, except their business model, and that business model is now colliding with reality.
I'm not arguing this is a good thing. For some people this situation really sucks. I'm arguing that this is reality. Content is being copied. Freely. Rather than having their business adapt and meet the desires of their customers, they're trying to force the world to adapt to their business model. I believe that approach is backwards.
That is my argument.
Feel free to set up another straw man and knock it down if you wish, or, show me why my belief is mistaken.
On the post: That Mythical 'Information Wants To Be Free' Crowd
Re: Re:
All it takes is one clever user to melt it, and the content is set free.
(ok, yes, that was a bit of a stretch...)
On the post: That Mythical 'Information Wants To Be Free' Crowd
"Information Wants To Be Free. Information also wants to be expensive. ... That tension will not go away"
If I have an object, and I give you that object, I no longer have it. it's a zero-sum situation, for one to gain, another must lose. Information is not at all like that. Bits are not atoms. But people want to treat them as if they were.
Secrets want to be told, and they quickly snowball out of control. Trying to contain them is like pushing water uphill with a stick. Its a losing battle, but not everyone has figured that out yet.
On the post: Photographer Compares Microstock Sites To Pollution And Drug Dealing
Don't be angry that someone is better able to serve your clients. Offer them better services!
Focus on services micro stock sits can not offer. You can't exactly get family portraits, wedding photos, Christmas photos, etc. from a stock site. focus on that stuff!
Offer generic stock photography through your site at super low prices, so if you are making a wedding album, for example, you can throw in a few extras for a small fee.
But most importantly: be friendly.
Once your photos are 'good enough' the biggest thing is, "are people comfortable around me?", "do they want to spend time with me?" My photos are no better than the ones they could get from any other photographer in the area, but I'm friendly, and familiar.
Most of my photo gigs come from a very small group of repeat customers, and I offer them the one thing micro-stock sites can not: photos of them.
On the post: If Google Visitors Are Worthless, It's Only Because Newspaper Execs Don't Know What They're Doing
No, the Masnick line is that if they put up pay walls, readers will go elsewhere, where news is still free.
The papers are on a slow, steady decline today, but forcing readers to pay will put the papers into a nosedive.
And "investing in stories" means sending a reporter to a location to experience a situation first hand, interviewing multiple people, doing research, and commenting on the situation. Few papers do this today.
Now, papers wait for the story to come to them, hit record, then transcribe what they have. This is not reporting, this is gossip and press releases masquerading as reporting; and from my perspective, as a consumer of 'news', it is not worth paying for.
On the post: Heads Of Major Movies Studios Claiming They Just Want To Help Poor Indie Films Harmed By Piracy
ISPs will be kicking users off the internet...
...so, should I start investing in companies involved in wireless mesh networking?
get enough people on board, and we will have our own internet, no more monthly fees.
gotta love how the internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it.
On the post: Copyright Extension Moves To Japan
"I would propose: Copyright plus zero years after death, period. Heck, 30 years or death, whichever comes first. If it's truly a form of welfare or pension, make it work like a pension plan, expire the time or split total to a beneficiary after death."
There is a big problem with something like this.
Say someone wants to use a work that is still under copyright, but they don't want to wait for it to enter the public domain, and they don't want to pay a fee for permission to use the work. Well, the poor artist/copyright owner may be the victim up some kind of 'unfortunate incident' which 'tragically' takes their life, and bingo! the work in question is instantly public domain!
copyright that lasts 25 years after date of publication, regardless of the artists life-span solves this potential problem.
On the post: Once Again, Walmart Stops People From Printing Family Photos Due To Copyright Law Claims
I can't call myself a 'pro' when I only do shoots two or three times a month.
On the post: Kicking People Off The Internet Not Enough In South Korea, Copyright Lobbyists Demand More
you read that right, they can't even post a comment replying to what they've seen in a video.
"We have voluntarily disabled this functionally on kr.youtube.com because of the Korean real-name verification law"
way to encourage science and the creative arts, copyright...
On the post: Once Again, Walmart Stops People From Printing Family Photos Due To Copyright Law Claims
And I am a semi-professional photographer!
I've recently gone in with 600 photos of kids sitting on Santa's knee, obviously they were all taken on a set, under professional lighting, and I've gotten them all printed effortlessly.
Its easy to forget how freaken huge walmart is, how many employees they have, and how stupid people can be. eventually, someone associated with the company will do something dumb.
On the post: Yes, Bad People Use Facebook Too
Having nothing to tweet about has nothing to do with it... :'(
Seriously though, any technology can be used for good, or for other purposes, and users really need to be more careful about what they post. People forget things; the internet does not.
On the post: Zombieland Director Goes After Fans, Doesn't Understand Popularity
I'll just wait 'till its on TV, where I can also watch the movie for free. But that's a completely different kind of 'watch it for free', because by the time it hits TV, the hype will be dead and I wont want to buy the DVD at that point.
On the post: Blink-182's Tom Delonge: Time To Adapt, Give Music Away For Free, Monetize Other Things
good video
Good song writing is objective? I disagree, I believe good song writing is subjective.
Blink 182 might be one person's favourite band, but their music is not to my taste. I don't enjoy their music, but my opinion says nothing about their songwriting.
I'm not a fan of and R&B or hip-hop, either. I love nine inch nails and skinny puppy, yet many dismiss those acts as producers of noise, not music.
If good songwriting were an objective quality of music, people would not centre around a certain genre or style; tastes would be far more eclectic.
other than that one minor nitpick, I agree with just about everything said, and it is fantastic to hear that another big name act 'gets it'.
On the post: Google Doesn't Want To Disclose Korean YouTube Uploaders; Turns Feature Off Instead
Re: Re:
on every Korean DVD player, the words read "Play", "Stop/Eject", "Menu", etc.
The buttons on a Korean cellphone say "Talk", "End", etc.
even in tiny Korean villages far away from foreigner-friendly Seoul are full of storefronts written in English. Sometimes, but not always there is a small Korean translation in the bottom corner. (English is very cool and trendy)
many of the channels broadcast in English, with subtitles, not dubbing. They learn English in elementary and middle school. In high school, they must also learn either German or French. Even if they can't speak English, the Latin alphabet is drilled into them from an early age, and is constantly reinforced.
With many things relating to technology, they use the English word, only expressed in Korean characters "kom-pyu-taw" "down-loh-du" "upu loh-du "bi-de-yo"
believe me, they can figure out "youtube.com" or "youtube.ca"
it's very frustrating, because when I lived there, I was able to upload my own videos without any problems, but now, many of the friends I made while over there are unable to respond to my videos because of these stupid laws. when these laws block facebook, another communication channel will be cut off.
This law is having social consequences, and it sucks.
On the post: David Brooks: Mobile Phones Are Destroying Courtship
so...
Now courtship is dynamic and unexpected (or "exciting").
And this is a bad thing?
sorry Grandpa, I'm not all that interested in doing things your way.
On the post: The Debate Is Not Free vs. Paid
The author could do public readings from his book, there could be a nominal cover charge to hear the author speak, but admission is free with a copy of the authors book. (reason to buy?)
a tiered approach.
free PDFs/audiobooks for casual fans
really nice leather-bound hardcovers for book lovers
releasing only the 1st 1/4 of the book for free on-line, if fans want the rest, they gotta buy it.
record an abridged audiobook and distribute it freely, making sure the audience knows that if they want the real thing, buy the hardcover.
I'm sure there are much better ideas out there, but it's the authors responsability to come up with something that appeals to their own, unique audience.
If a creator or publisher clings to the old way of doing something well after a much better way has been introduced, they deserve to fail.
It's called 'the free market'
On the post: Copyright Holders Shutting Down University Copy Shops; Libraries Need To Worry About Photocopier Infringement
copy shop
The photo in the article shows a building which used to house 2 competing copy shops that I used for nearly all my University textbooks. (only one remains in business today-and I mean that literally, I walked past this building TODAY)
In my first year of University (2002) My school (OCAD) had a deal with 'Copy Shop A' to photocopy course readers, since dedicated textbooks did not exist for my program.
The cost was about $14.50 for a 100 page photocopied course reader.
Sometime during my second year, the shop was busted for copying without permission, and not paying a copyright clearance fee, so we had to use 'Copy Shop B' which DID pay the copyright clearance fee.
guess how much a photocopied textbook of roughly equal length cost in year two?
$45.95
in year 3, the cost rose to $92.00 for a 100 page photocopied course reader.
This is the message that Access Copyright sent out to the students of the University of Toronto, Ryerson, and the Ontario College of Art and Design:
Because of us, your textbook costs have gone from $14.50 to $92.00.
By year four, less than half of the students in one of my classes had purchased the textbook. most people would get a group of friends together in the library, take the copy the library had on file, and make multiple copies of that, which worked out to being about half the cost of going legit.
They certainly weren't winning anyone over with their actions.
Since graduating in 2006, my school has moved on to having its own copy shop/bookstore, so I have no idea what the course reader situation is today.
On the post: Music Publishers, Songwriters To Congress: Our Royalties Should Be Guaranteed, No Matter What The Market Says
"They will LOSE money if they win this. If they eliminate samples or increase the price, the well sell far less music and not more.
Also, if the only way to hear samples of music is to download it illegally, they'll have shot themselves in both feet."
I predict this is their plan. When everyone stops buying music because of these stupid royalty requirements, the industry will blame piracy for their failure and demand even harsher laws.
This kind of stuff infuriates me, because I am an artist, and it pisses me off to see these guys giving creative people a bad name. We're not lazy, greedy people, we are hard working people trying to scrape by on well under minimum wage.
I can sympathize with these people. I want more money, too; but I understand that demanding money for something that is available for free is foolish. It may not be desirable; in fact, from the artists point of view, its devastating. But, it is reality.
Digital content is free, and supplies are infinite. Wishing that it wasn't isn't going to change things. Deal with it.
Next >>