Re: Re: Lost web pages "tragic"? Oy, you got some wild notions, minion.
"This same attitude of yours is why 70% of all silent films are now lost - either people thought they were crap not worth preserving, or didn't have the rights to make copies so that they could be preserved."
I found this an interesting statement. I researched it and found that many were lost in fires or the medium used was not durable. What strikes me is that when you copyright a piece you send a copy to the library of congress. Please enlighten me on how this process dooms it to be lost by mankind.
"$0.99 ~ $1.29 is a ripoff, it is ten orders of magnitude what the market expects, prices for streaming on the order of $0.09 ~ $0.129"
I am not sure how you can tell me what the market expects to pay, but for arguments sake, If you would like to stream music there is a service called Rhapsody where you pay $10 a month and have unlimited streaming. That drops the price per song down below your price, regardless where you got that figure.
"Go to Kickass Torrents and you find any movie, song or book you like, the search for it is easy, the interface is great, there are no DRM, there are no limitations of what you could do with it."
I think this is a very weak argument. Go to a torrent site get it for free and they don't limit what you can do with it? Imagine that. They don't create the content nor have any of the costs associated with producing it. I find this line of thinking refuses to acknowledge content cost money to make.
"there is no phoning home telling some company what you are watching, when, with whom and for how long and so on."
I have never had to do this when watching a movie and I am sure neither have you.
"I can't take your arguments seriously when you don't acknowledge that others too have valid complaints."
Many of the complaints are valid but to "rip-off" the creator of content by not paying ANYTHING is not the solution. My responses came from this initial statement
"Another reason to only collect music you don't pay for"
As I said already, however you want to justify getting something for nothing is entirely up to you. No, not everyone is doing it. To imply that you are speaking for the people when getting content for free is beyond hubris. Sure, the statutory damages are outrageous if applied to an individual but that was not their intent. They were designed to dissuade businesses from participating in these types of activities. Let us not forget the purpose of fines. Just like when breaking any other law they are meant to punish and deter conduct.
"If you want to blame copyright infringement for your lack of sales, but do not want to provide the media in a format that the customer wants at a reasonable price, then that is just a cop out."
A digital download and CD seems to work for everyone else, I suppose you need a special format?
You suggest that 99 cents to $1.29 per single is a rip-off? Or perhaps 16 songs for $13.49? 84 cents per song..or 14 songs for $5.99, 42 cents a song. Still a rip off right? These are actual prices. When you are arguing you can't pay 42 cents per song, I can't take the argument seriously. Something you can have for the rest of you life and actually give to your children, as my father gave his record collection to me.
"If the artist wants to rip me off, why should I have any qualms about doing the same thing?"
If you feel a song is not worth 42 cents, your alternative is to take it for free? I love this argument. Because in your mind you are getting "ripped off," so you are justified and entitled to have it for free. I love the logic. This is rich. Only in copyright will you hear this argument.
"DRM treats all customers like criminals. DRM is closer to a criminal act than copyright infringement as it removes my rights to a legal back up copy of what I have purchased."
As if someone has EVER come to you house and said "you have made more than one back up copy of the music you have purchased, you must pay! you are in trouble!" The argument of ghost enforcement.
Somehow invariably Disney gets mentioned, for what reason I have no idea. As if we are all waiting around to use images of Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. If only Snow White was in the public domain, then society would be free of tyranny.... Then talks of bribes and corruption.
However you want to justify fighting the "system" by not paying for things you want is entirely up to you. Just realize there are plenty of people that would rather support an artist a PAY for what they create.
95 years from publication and 120 from creation does not seem to me as forever...I find the new debate is often "it's the law but I shouldn't have to obey it cause technology makes it easy to break."
This law I can't get behind however, I am not sure why if I create something of value it should not be passed down to my children....It occurs in other industries, yet because I did it in a creative medium it should not apply?
Hush.....If it had no value you wouldn't collect it. If you want to justify yourself not buying music by saying if the system weren't so messed up I would, that is just a cop-out. blah, blah, blah..If I like the artist I buy the record and SUPPORT them...I have no idea where insulting customers and treating them like criminals comes in..
I am always curious how society and/or culture is being robbed. I believed copyright is to protect the commercial exploitation of a work. For instance, if I paint a painting shouldn't I have the right to make t-shirts or posters of this image as opposed to someone else? If I listen to a song on the radio is culture being deprived because the licensing is involved makes someone pay to broadcast the song to me?
Though I cannot agree that IP has no value, I can't seem to get on board with this concept. If as a visual artist, I finally hit it big, then I should create new art to maximize the new found value in my work. If it is "property" then it must be treated as such.
I am interested how you get paid for what you do and if copyright in any way contributes to your income. I agree the system is flawed however, I often find the debates on copyright pretend that the copyrighted item cost money to produce and is not made in a vacuum by volunteers for free. I posit how does a business recoup?
I thought it hinged on the time shifting. You are allowed to "timeshift" tv transmissions for individual use. Like using a vcr (back in the olden days, haha) to record a show and play it back for yourself later. This copy that was made was for individual use only. Here, its the same....as if you are paying someone use your vcr to record tv for you.....but the copies have to remain individual or it violates the "time shift" premise......am I right on this?
Wonderfully, thank you. It is really quite smart....you are allowed to make a copy, for individual use, just to time shift and here is a service that is maintaining that one individual copy for you. Brilliant....
Re: Re: Re: Re: You know, Mike, one can get into "phony" trouble with real actions.
Making a profit does not necessarily infer responsibility for another's actions.
absolutely not. However, I must say if the "blacksmith" is selling tickets to the death match (advertising profits) he is running a business. As a business owner, he can't say "I'm not responsible for what happens in the death match." Making money changes the equation. He is an active participant and there in lies the liability. He no longer can say I just made the sword. He made the sword, provided the venue and is getting paid from people buying tickets to the spectacle HE created. He becomes responsible because he facilitated and orchestrated the entire thing. It doesn't matter if the swordsman volunteered or not because, but not for the blacksmith, none of it would have happened.
MGM v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005) used the same theory. It's the "don't play dumb," the whole purpose of the website is to post this kind of user generated content so the owner of the site is liable.
Re: Re: You know, Mike, one can get into "phony" trouble with real actions.
I don't believe your analogy quite holds. I would say more like the blacksmith being accountable for the actions of the swordsman where the blacksmith owned and and operated a death match venue. He profited from the website. Though I haven't seen it I'm sure there were adverts on it not to mention he charged to take the pictures down.
I see this as Franz in that you cannot hide behind the veil of UGC if the whole purpose of the site is to post this content. If the whole purpose of the site is to encourage behavior you say you have no control over, then aren't you ultimately responsible for the content?
Yes the model has and is changing. I do not believe any artist that was signed to a label is really a good example only in that any promotion made by a label was a monetary investment to gain fans. I believe in the independent artist and playing live is how musician have made money for a very very long time add to that merchandise and that is the new model. There is nothing wrong with a business where the product is music and copyright falls into that paradigm. I, unlike many, I see a logical reason for the existence of copyright. Often I find the arguments against it are, well I can get it free anyway so why should I pay for it. I find this argument unconvincing. I do believe that giving music away for free is a great promotion, one geared toward prepping the fan to purchase the music when placed for sale. I believe the rap mixtape the perfect example.
Reminds me of the music industry when file sharing began. Keep your head in the sand and the problem will go away. I have not had a TV for over a year and a half. I got rid of cable as it was too expensive and many channels I didn't watch. Netflix conditioned me to watch programming on demand and once that happened, how I viewed was fundamentally changed. Now, if I could pick channels a la carte it would not matter. I am conditioned to watch programming on demand.
What are you talking about? I'm talking about infringing content on youtube. You are talking about non-infringing content......that is not what Chris and I we were talking about. As to non- infringing content getting taken down, I guess they need to tighten up.
On the post: Copyright Strikes Again: No Online Access To UK Internet Archive
Re: Re: Lost web pages "tragic"? Oy, you got some wild notions, minion.
I found this an interesting statement. I researched it and found that many were lost in fires or the medium used was not durable. What strikes me is that when you copyright a piece you send a copy to the library of congress. Please enlighten me on how this process dooms it to be lost by mankind.
On the post: US Copyright Office Supports Artists Getting Paid Multiple Times For Same Work, Harming New Artists To Benefit Established Ones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am not sure how you can tell me what the market expects to pay, but for arguments sake, If you would like to stream music there is a service called Rhapsody where you pay $10 a month and have unlimited streaming. That drops the price per song down below your price, regardless where you got that figure.
"Go to Kickass Torrents and you find any movie, song or book you like, the search for it is easy, the interface is great, there are no DRM, there are no limitations of what you could do with it."
I think this is a very weak argument. Go to a torrent site get it for free and they don't limit what you can do with it? Imagine that. They don't create the content nor have any of the costs associated with producing it. I find this line of thinking refuses to acknowledge content cost money to make.
"there is no phoning home telling some company what you are watching, when, with whom and for how long and so on."
I have never had to do this when watching a movie and I am sure neither have you.
"I can't take your arguments seriously when you don't acknowledge that others too have valid complaints."
Many of the complaints are valid but to "rip-off" the creator of content by not paying ANYTHING is not the solution. My responses came from this initial statement
"Another reason to only collect music you don't pay for"
As I said already, however you want to justify getting something for nothing is entirely up to you. No, not everyone is doing it. To imply that you are speaking for the people when getting content for free is beyond hubris. Sure, the statutory damages are outrageous if applied to an individual but that was not their intent. They were designed to dissuade businesses from participating in these types of activities. Let us not forget the purpose of fines. Just like when breaking any other law they are meant to punish and deter conduct.
On the post: US Copyright Office Supports Artists Getting Paid Multiple Times For Same Work, Harming New Artists To Benefit Established Ones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A digital download and CD seems to work for everyone else, I suppose you need a special format?
You suggest that 99 cents to $1.29 per single is a rip-off? Or perhaps 16 songs for $13.49? 84 cents per song..or 14 songs for $5.99, 42 cents a song. Still a rip off right? These are actual prices. When you are arguing you can't pay 42 cents per song, I can't take the argument seriously. Something you can have for the rest of you life and actually give to your children, as my father gave his record collection to me.
"If the artist wants to rip me off, why should I have any qualms about doing the same thing?"
If you feel a song is not worth 42 cents, your alternative is to take it for free? I love this argument. Because in your mind you are getting "ripped off," so you are justified and entitled to have it for free. I love the logic. This is rich. Only in copyright will you hear this argument.
"DRM treats all customers like criminals. DRM is closer to a criminal act than copyright infringement as it removes my rights to a legal back up copy of what I have purchased."
As if someone has EVER come to you house and said "you have made more than one back up copy of the music you have purchased, you must pay! you are in trouble!" The argument of ghost enforcement.
Somehow invariably Disney gets mentioned, for what reason I have no idea. As if we are all waiting around to use images of Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. If only Snow White was in the public domain, then society would be free of tyranny.... Then talks of bribes and corruption.
However you want to justify fighting the "system" by not paying for things you want is entirely up to you. Just realize there are plenty of people that would rather support an artist a PAY for what they create.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not buying this
On the post: US Copyright Office Supports Artists Getting Paid Multiple Times For Same Work, Harming New Artists To Benefit Established Ones
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US Copyright Office Supports Artists Getting Paid Multiple Times For Same Work, Harming New Artists To Benefit Established Ones
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not buying this
On the post: US Copyright Office Supports Artists Getting Paid Multiple Times For Same Work, Harming New Artists To Benefit Established Ones
Re:
On the post: US Copyright Office Supports Artists Getting Paid Multiple Times For Same Work, Harming New Artists To Benefit Established Ones
Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: I'm not buying this
On the post: Aereo To Supreme Court: Yes, Please Review The Ruling In Which We Trounced The TV Broadcasters
Re:
On the post: Aereo To Supreme Court: Yes, Please Review The Ruling In Which We Trounced The TV Broadcasters
Re:
On the post: Aereo To Supreme Court: Yes, Please Review The Ruling In Which We Trounced The TV Broadcasters
Re:
On the post: Scumbag Revenge Porn Site Operator Arrested... But Many Of The Charges Are Very Problematic
Re: Re: Re: Re: You know, Mike, one can get into "phony" trouble with real actions.
absolutely not. However, I must say if the "blacksmith" is selling tickets to the death match (advertising profits) he is running a business. As a business owner, he can't say "I'm not responsible for what happens in the death match." Making money changes the equation. He is an active participant and there in lies the liability. He no longer can say I just made the sword. He made the sword, provided the venue and is getting paid from people buying tickets to the spectacle HE created. He becomes responsible because he facilitated and orchestrated the entire thing. It doesn't matter if the swordsman volunteered or not because, but not for the blacksmith, none of it would have happened.
On the post: Scumbag Revenge Porn Site Operator Arrested... But Many Of The Charges Are Very Problematic
Re: inducement
On the post: Scumbag Revenge Porn Site Operator Arrested... But Many Of The Charges Are Very Problematic
Re: Re: You know, Mike, one can get into "phony" trouble with real actions.
On the post: Scumbag Revenge Porn Site Operator Arrested... But Many Of The Charges Are Very Problematic
On the post: The Future Of Music Business Models (And Those Who Are Already There)
I believe the rap mixtape the perfect example.
On the post: CEO Of 21st Century Fox Thinks People Aren't Really Asking For A La Carte TV Channels
On the post: Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood Thinks Google Is To Blame For Infringement On The Web
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>