I love this strawman you keep bringing up about banks being digitized. When are you actually going to focus on the points raised instead of this stuff about banks digitizing money?
Those "pirates" have contributed more to the economy than those "leeches" who head the trade industries.
Everyone is aware of how much lying Mike Masnick will do in order to deride this bill, but it's important to realize that everyone knows what joke he is and no one takes any of his bs seriously.
Translation: "There is a very real chance that this bill shall not pass and there goes my Christmas bonus."
The business models that you support are trying to sell something that's infinite as a scarcity. It's not working.
The bill has transformed into censorship, plain and simple. It looks to remove legal platforms in order to give control to smaller industries of the economy.
Quite frankly, if the industries truly believe that $20 DVDs are the future of the industry, they've learned nothing in the last 20 years.
. A model that says "give it all away, and hope to sell something else" isn't a business model, it's crap.
Which Mike has never said anyway, but do go on with your failure in comprehension.
It's converting a multi billion dollar a year music industry into gimmie for jackasses trying to sell "scarce" t-shirts (apparently nobody checked my closet... scarce my ass!).
Yes, an industry that has contempt for consumers and new players to the game that could actually make them more money. Topspin has made money on the scarcities you mocked. Jamendo has a great relationship with its artists. And yet when talking about any RIAA represented artist, I find the same problems. Eminem had to sue his label for his money. 50 Cent is a dirty pirate as defined by the RIAA. Joss Stone has talked openly about how her label was mad that she made new music. Let me say this again: Her label was pissed at Joss Stone for creating new music on her own time when she had already made an album. We've heard the horror story of Courtney Love's problems with labels. And the fact is, I know for a fact there were quite a few bands that were only together because their label paid them to be together.
Then we go to the enforcer side. The ASCAP, BMI, SESAC section. What good do they do when they don't even scout out the new talent, but make it harder for a band to have a locale to play in? Most of the bands I know sell the CDs as a scarcity in a concert. It sure as hell works for them to have money to go to Mexico instead of the ASCAP fail train that disproportionately pays the top 20% of artists in the US. And this criticism of the newer ways for artists to be heard is worse, how? Because a label makes less money while the artists make more? Perish the thought that treating the artist better means more money in the interim.
Worse yet, because it is predicated on the occassional idiot making a purchase, it doesn't take very much for the model to fail.
I guess Radiohead and OK Go prove you wrong. Not to mention websites like Wikipedia, TVTropes, and KnowYourMeme.
Losing 1 sale kills the support money to pay for thousands of freeloaders. It doesn't take long for the "business model" to be shown as what it really is, a free lunch with a $5 porta-potty on the side.
Don't you just love it when someone comes up with the thoroughly debunked reference to the 1:1 causation? By all means, show how that's happened when artists make more money through Soundcloud than through Universal. Prove that this business model isn't working when there's plenty of Kickstarter projects that prove you wrong.
But it truly isn't innovative to give away someone else's product and act like you have a new business model.
People share the music with others. Nothing is lost through that sharing. Someone might check out the artist and become a fan. A movie watched by more than one person can have people selling products to it. And quite frankly, if you believe that the movie or music is just the end product with no work in there, then you're doing it wrong.
"You're the poster child of Masnick's Gang o' Pirates. "
Actually, everyone gets together over the rum, and cola to sit down and figure out who's the captain of the week. Then Mike comes out goes Eenie Meenie, Minie Mo' and picks the guy that hasn't stabbed the others for the position. Dammit Eejit, you beat Dark Helmet and TAC for the position! The other guys are sure to make you walk the plank. Run for your life!
Chris Dodd doesn't see that. He wants the technology sector to fight his war against consumers.
Though Wednesday’s address once again outlined the economic costs of piracy, it was also an appeal for help. The former U.S. senator said that the tech and entertainment sectors face an uphill battle to change popular attitudes about the dangers of piracy.
So after all of the research, after all of the professors have had their say, the entrepreneurs, the artists themselves, and the tech that made the internet, it's taking TWO industries the price of a few lobbyists and bought politicians to destroy all of the work to create a commons of global proportions.
Small note: Sweden once did away with its patent system and innovations flourished. If you can, look at "Rethinking IP Completely." It's a talk from Stephen Kinsella who is an admitted Anarcho-Libertarian.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Paul, while Mike often does link to third party sites as "source" material, too often those sites are also opinion or incredibly biased sites (like Torrent Freak), which makes the content very questionable.
... Torrent Freak has a bias? Ok... How does that work out? They try to ask the MPAA for comment and explain how they didn't bother to reply. How is that a bias?
Remember, every time Mike say "we have already shown" and points to his own work, he is being somewhat sneaky into trying to convert his opinion into fact.
Right... A writer should put up a missive for every article on the site. Good to know.
"Copyright harms the economy" is a great one - how the heck do you "prove" that it doesn't?
By actual data? That's been collected from 3 years as Joe Karaganis in his "Media Piracy in Emerging Economies" book indicates?
By actual data from the CBO saying the enforcement of copyright is causing X amount of dollars a annually?
By actual data that has already come up time and time again, but you don't want to read the data, instead opting to believe there is no data because your mouse clicks don't work?
By all means, if you had actual data showing how copyright ISN'T harming the economy and leading to growth I'd love to hear it. Sadly, that's not in the job description now, is it?
Okay, but by this very same token, I would think it means you believe in corporate welfare.
This comes in the form of bailouts for businesses, the bank wanting people to grow cheese or corn for biofuels and a number of other methods to help businesses gain sustenance.
" I just see the evils committed by corporations and I don't see how privatizing everything and giving them more power is going to help anyone but those on the top."
The biggest thing on this is how we have defined them as people in the US. Odds are, if we had businesses as money making services that couldn't run to our government for grievances against people, it would allow them to establish safer principles of work or a ton of innovation by always offering new ways of doing business. In other places, this makes no sense.
Further I would express caution. Saying that corporations would be "evil" under our current cronyist government might not work under a libertarian way of business.
" I don't think its possible for one person to be a millionaire with out hundreds of people breaking their back for them and ending up poor."
It actually is. Have you heard of the CEO of Costco?. He treats his employees well and makes a comfortable living.
Even Andrew Carnegie made his money by treating others around him quite well. I don't necessarily agree with all of his practices, but naming a railway after a supervisor made sure to keep his employees happy. The point is, you can be a millionaire without breaking everyone under you. I would argue that the richest people usually bring a lot of people up in their ride to the top. Hell, look at Warren Buffett. I'm sure that he has a close knit number of friends that he continues to enjoy time with.
For the haves to just be able to say, thanks I am done with you and throw the people whose work made them what they are to the wolves is not a society I want to live in.
Again, I would state that's not a society without its problems as the OWS movement seems to make us aware. No one is against income growth unless it was gained through illicit or scrupulous means. If the financial meltdown showed anything, it's the fact that the US has to restructure how businesses work as well as the relationship of the government to its people and businesses. It can't pick the winners and losers. That's what the market is supposed to decide.
I just don't see how easing regulation is going to make these companies better citizens. These companies are successful, at least in part, because they treat other people horribly.
But what happens if the regulation is usurped by those that are supposed to be regulated? Hence, my belief that there has to be something other than regulation to curb unethical behavior. Hell, look up Tim Geithner and how he orchestrated the economic meltdown and the bailouts. Why do both political parties in power love him? Because he gave tons of money to all banks with no strings attached. By no means would a Libertarian want that type of deal to occur.
Even still its an example of how success is built on the "failure" of others. I could dig harder for examples of companies fucking over American's but frankly these examples all come easier. I don't think its that hard for you to figure out a couple on your own.
No question. Some of the largest companies live to screw over others in the pursuit of profit. But that's because the playing field is beyond uneven. Think about copyright and how it favors large corporations. They can bring about large suits against others and through statutory damages, destroy a single person's life. If copyright weren't there to regulate the market, the market would route around the damage. Judging how people don't like the copyright laws now, that's exactly what's happening. The MPAA and RIAA are trying to control the internet, but there WILL be a lot of opposition to this act. It tries to felonize Justin Bieber and you know his fans are some of the most rabid. It destroys platforms of expression just because they exist.
To say that society can use you up and a bad break, a bad boss, or a bad decision can leave destitute is ridiculous to me.
But I think this ignores all of the actors that make it without screwing over people such as Jim Senegal (CEO of Costco). I wouldn't look at just the financial district or even Walmart without factoring in the people that keep a low profile, treat their employees well and make a conscious effort to maintain a good relationship with the people that work for them. It's like saying Gabe Newell is evil for figuring out how to make money with Steam. Yes, he's successful and he gives back in a number of ways. He does this without needing a government to regulate it.
I do truly want to see how they can believe that the world would be better off by removing the protections we have put in place for the working poor and people who fall on hard times
I would say take away the barriers to growth. Patent law, drug law, copyright law are just a few. Allow those laws that create a societal benefit. And end the idea of corporate welfare, which is what is currently keeping zombified large businesses in the hands of stockholders instead of people.
I just don't see it being a wise move to remove the governments ability to support the people who lose when their loss is what allows others to win.
Okay, but when the regulation is run by those that are regulated, that's where the problems increase ten fold.
The libertarian belief of labor is one example. Labor is an action. You have to question if the products of that action such as music, movies, etc., require protection as if they're property.
Link I think Kinsella's discussion has it best at the 18 - 20 minute mark. Creation is not sufficient to new property rights. You can work to own a scarcity, but common goods are agreed upon to be given through voluntary contracts for one's self.
I fail to see how libertarians recognize IP laws when they create bureacracies that go against their principles.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Thanks. It's great when I show that the industry's entire strategy is based on suing others for being successful, while the industry can do nothing itself to bring success to their door.
Glad you liked the articles undermining your position.
And what's the result of suing everyone? Less likelihood that the music industry becomes successful, and a grandiose sense of entitlement from anyone trying to make music easier to access for consumers. Hell, if anything, you should have the artists wanting to form up and take down these companies. But the RIAA goes above and beyond stupidity because they have government resources (through ICE) to take down sites they don't like. This would not actually work at all if not for the fact that they were given money to continue these shenanigans from our government.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Wow, you're acting like a child and trying to chastise others?
You lost all your moral high ground when you couldn't respond to the AC's argument in how a car was just on loan. Just to add something further to that, explain why record labels give their artists credit cards to rack up debt instead of coming into the 21st century and figuring out how to use new technology.
You lost your societal high ground by not understanding the articles presented to you, merely relying on your own belligerence in the matter.
You lost your economic high ground by not recognizing how trade industries are morally bankrupt, instead opting to destroy platforms of other, more successful businesses rather than make artists more successful.
Of course, you're only here to troll so why bother with facts?
"So doesn't this example show that strong copyright, if properly limited in scope, can actually drive innovation by forcing follow-on creators to invent differences - in other words, to be creative?"
No, I would argue that social mores and expectations did more to drive innovation than copyright law.
On the post: An Open Letter To Chris Dodd: Silicon Valley Can't Help Hollywood If You First Cripple It With Bad Regulation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: An Open Letter To Chris Dodd: Silicon Valley Can't Help Hollywood If You First Cripple It With Bad Regulation
Re: Re: Re:
Those "pirates" have contributed more to the economy than those "leeches" who head the trade industries.
Everyone is aware of how much lying Mike Masnick will do in order to deride this bill, but it's important to realize that everyone knows what joke he is and no one takes any of his bs seriously.
Translation: "There is a very real chance that this bill shall not pass and there goes my Christmas bonus."
On the post: An Open Letter To Chris Dodd: Silicon Valley Can't Help Hollywood If You First Cripple It With Bad Regulation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The bill has transformed into censorship, plain and simple. It looks to remove legal platforms in order to give control to smaller industries of the economy.
Quite frankly, if the industries truly believe that $20 DVDs are the future of the industry, they've learned nothing in the last 20 years.
On the post: An Open Letter To Chris Dodd: Silicon Valley Can't Help Hollywood If You First Cripple It With Bad Regulation
Re: Re: Re:
Which Mike has never said anyway, but do go on with your failure in comprehension.
It's converting a multi billion dollar a year music industry into gimmie for jackasses trying to sell "scarce" t-shirts (apparently nobody checked my closet... scarce my ass!).
Yes, an industry that has contempt for consumers and new players to the game that could actually make them more money. Topspin has made money on the scarcities you mocked. Jamendo has a great relationship with its artists. And yet when talking about any RIAA represented artist, I find the same problems. Eminem had to sue his label for his money. 50 Cent is a dirty pirate as defined by the RIAA. Joss Stone has talked openly about how her label was mad that she made new music. Let me say this again: Her label was pissed at Joss Stone for creating new music on her own time when she had already made an album. We've heard the horror story of Courtney Love's problems with labels. And the fact is, I know for a fact there were quite a few bands that were only together because their label paid them to be together.
Then we go to the enforcer side. The ASCAP, BMI, SESAC section. What good do they do when they don't even scout out the new talent, but make it harder for a band to have a locale to play in? Most of the bands I know sell the CDs as a scarcity in a concert. It sure as hell works for them to have money to go to Mexico instead of the ASCAP fail train that disproportionately pays the top 20% of artists in the US. And this criticism of the newer ways for artists to be heard is worse, how? Because a label makes less money while the artists make more? Perish the thought that treating the artist better means more money in the interim.
Worse yet, because it is predicated on the occassional idiot making a purchase, it doesn't take very much for the model to fail.
I guess Radiohead and OK Go prove you wrong. Not to mention websites like Wikipedia, TVTropes, and KnowYourMeme.
Losing 1 sale kills the support money to pay for thousands of freeloaders. It doesn't take long for the "business model" to be shown as what it really is, a free lunch with a $5 porta-potty on the side.
Don't you just love it when someone comes up with the thoroughly debunked reference to the 1:1 causation? By all means, show how that's happened when artists make more money through Soundcloud than through Universal. Prove that this business model isn't working when there's plenty of Kickstarter projects that prove you wrong.
But it truly isn't innovative to give away someone else's product and act like you have a new business model.
People share the music with others. Nothing is lost through that sharing. Someone might check out the artist and become a fan. A movie watched by more than one person can have people selling products to it. And quite frankly, if you believe that the movie or music is just the end product with no work in there, then you're doing it wrong.
On the post: MPAA Kills More Innovation; Zediva Shut Down Permanently
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bright side
Actually, everyone gets together over the rum, and cola to sit down and figure out who's the captain of the week. Then Mike comes out goes Eenie Meenie, Minie Mo' and picks the guy that hasn't stabbed the others for the position. Dammit Eejit, you beat Dark Helmet and TAC for the position! The other guys are sure to make you walk the plank. Run for your life!
On the post: An Open Letter To Chris Dodd: Silicon Valley Can't Help Hollywood If You First Cripple It With Bad Regulation
Re: Oh, noes! Mike's gone all "open letter" on a /former/ Senator!
Because the creator of Topspin, Kickstarter and Soundcloud don't mean anything to you.
On the post: MPAA Kills More Innovation; Zediva Shut Down Permanently
That's the joke!
On the post: MPAA Kills More Innovation; Zediva Shut Down Permanently
Re: Bright side
Though Wednesday’s address once again outlined the economic costs of piracy, it was also an appeal for help. The former U.S. senator said that the tech and entertainment sectors face an uphill battle to change popular attitudes about the dangers of piracy.
So after all of the research, after all of the professors have had their say, the entrepreneurs, the artists themselves, and the tech that made the internet, it's taking TWO industries the price of a few lobbyists and bought politicians to destroy all of the work to create a commons of global proportions.
If it weren't so sickening, it'd be maddening.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Copyright Infringement Turned Vampires Into Big Business
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Toughest Job In All Of Showbiz? Trying To Teach Major Record Labels How To Adapt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
... Torrent Freak has a bias? Ok... How does that work out? They try to ask the MPAA for comment and explain how they didn't bother to reply. How is that a bias?
Remember, every time Mike say "we have already shown" and points to his own work, he is being somewhat sneaky into trying to convert his opinion into fact.
Right... A writer should put up a missive for every article on the site. Good to know.
"Copyright harms the economy" is a great one - how the heck do you "prove" that it doesn't?
By actual data? That's been collected from 3 years as Joe Karaganis in his "Media Piracy in Emerging Economies" book indicates?
By actual data from the CBO saying the enforcement of copyright is causing X amount of dollars a annually?
By actual data that has already come up time and time again, but you don't want to read the data, instead opting to believe there is no data because your mouse clicks don't work?
By all means, if you had actual data showing how copyright ISN'T harming the economy and leading to growth I'd love to hear it. Sadly, that's not in the job description now, is it?
On the post: Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, but by this very same token, I would think it means you believe in corporate welfare.
This comes in the form of bailouts for businesses, the bank wanting people to grow cheese or corn for biofuels and a number of other methods to help businesses gain sustenance.
On the post: Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible
LONG reply...
The biggest thing on this is how we have defined them as people in the US. Odds are, if we had businesses as money making services that couldn't run to our government for grievances against people, it would allow them to establish safer principles of work or a ton of innovation by always offering new ways of doing business. In other places, this makes no sense.
Further I would express caution. Saying that corporations would be "evil" under our current cronyist government might not work under a libertarian way of business.
" I don't think its possible for one person to be a millionaire with out hundreds of people breaking their back for them and ending up poor."
It actually is. Have you heard of the CEO of Costco?. He treats his employees well and makes a comfortable living.
Even Andrew Carnegie made his money by treating others around him quite well. I don't necessarily agree with all of his practices, but naming a railway after a supervisor made sure to keep his employees happy. The point is, you can be a millionaire without breaking everyone under you. I would argue that the richest people usually bring a lot of people up in their ride to the top. Hell, look at Warren Buffett. I'm sure that he has a close knit number of friends that he continues to enjoy time with.
For the haves to just be able to say, thanks I am done with you and throw the people whose work made them what they are to the wolves is not a society I want to live in.
Again, I would state that's not a society without its problems as the OWS movement seems to make us aware. No one is against income growth unless it was gained through illicit or scrupulous means. If the financial meltdown showed anything, it's the fact that the US has to restructure how businesses work as well as the relationship of the government to its people and businesses. It can't pick the winners and losers. That's what the market is supposed to decide.
I just don't see how easing regulation is going to make these companies better citizens. These companies are successful, at least in part, because they treat other people horribly.
But what happens if the regulation is usurped by those that are supposed to be regulated? Hence, my belief that there has to be something other than regulation to curb unethical behavior. Hell, look up Tim Geithner and how he orchestrated the economic meltdown and the bailouts. Why do both political parties in power love him? Because he gave tons of money to all banks with no strings attached. By no means would a Libertarian want that type of deal to occur.
Even still its an example of how success is built on the "failure" of others. I could dig harder for examples of companies fucking over American's but frankly these examples all come easier. I don't think its that hard for you to figure out a couple on your own.
No question. Some of the largest companies live to screw over others in the pursuit of profit. But that's because the playing field is beyond uneven. Think about copyright and how it favors large corporations. They can bring about large suits against others and through statutory damages, destroy a single person's life. If copyright weren't there to regulate the market, the market would route around the damage. Judging how people don't like the copyright laws now, that's exactly what's happening. The MPAA and RIAA are trying to control the internet, but there WILL be a lot of opposition to this act. It tries to felonize Justin Bieber and you know his fans are some of the most rabid. It destroys platforms of expression just because they exist.
To say that society can use you up and a bad break, a bad boss, or a bad decision can leave destitute is ridiculous to me.
But I think this ignores all of the actors that make it without screwing over people such as Jim Senegal (CEO of Costco). I wouldn't look at just the financial district or even Walmart without factoring in the people that keep a low profile, treat their employees well and make a conscious effort to maintain a good relationship with the people that work for them. It's like saying Gabe Newell is evil for figuring out how to make money with Steam. Yes, he's successful and he gives back in a number of ways. He does this without needing a government to regulate it.
I do truly want to see how they can believe that the world would be better off by removing the protections we have put in place for the working poor and people who fall on hard times
I would say take away the barriers to growth. Patent law, drug law, copyright law are just a few. Allow those laws that create a societal benefit. And end the idea of corporate welfare, which is what is currently keeping zombified large businesses in the hands of stockholders instead of people.
I just don't see it being a wise move to remove the governments ability to support the people who lose when their loss is what allows others to win.
Okay, but when the regulation is run by those that are regulated, that's where the problems increase ten fold.
On the post: Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The libertarian belief of labor is one example. Labor is an action. You have to question if the products of that action such as music, movies, etc., require protection as if they're property.
Link I think Kinsella's discussion has it best at the 18 - 20 minute mark. Creation is not sufficient to new property rights. You can work to own a scarcity, but common goods are agreed upon to be given through voluntary contracts for one's self.
I fail to see how libertarians recognize IP laws when they create bureacracies that go against their principles.
On the post: Toughest Job In All Of Showbiz? Trying To Teach Major Record Labels How To Adapt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Glad you liked the articles undermining your position.
On the post: Toughest Job In All Of Showbiz? Trying To Teach Major Record Labels How To Adapt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
Sue anyone that's moderately useful to their products
Sue the churches for copyrighted music
Sue porn sites
Sue satellites
Sue everyone that's close to P2P
Oh, and sue the people
And what's the result of suing everyone? Less likelihood that the music industry becomes successful, and a grandiose sense of entitlement from anyone trying to make music easier to access for consumers. Hell, if anything, you should have the artists wanting to form up and take down these companies. But the RIAA goes above and beyond stupidity because they have government resources (through ICE) to take down sites they don't like. This would not actually work at all if not for the fact that they were given money to continue these shenanigans from our government.
On the post: Toughest Job In All Of Showbiz? Trying To Teach Major Record Labels How To Adapt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR maybe they were given a fair shot, and flopped.
You lost all your moral high ground when you couldn't respond to the AC's argument in how a car was just on loan. Just to add something further to that, explain why record labels give their artists credit cards to rack up debt instead of coming into the 21st century and figuring out how to use new technology.
You lost your societal high ground by not understanding the articles presented to you, merely relying on your own belligerence in the matter.
You lost your economic high ground by not recognizing how trade industries are morally bankrupt, instead opting to destroy platforms of other, more successful businesses rather than make artists more successful.
Of course, you're only here to troll so why bother with facts?
On the post: How Copyright Infringement Turned Vampires Into Big Business
Re:
No, I would argue that social mores and expectations did more to drive innovation than copyright law.
Next >>