I guess it wasn't clear. I was being sarcastic. Their margins tripled, things can't be that bad. If anything, they're close to margins which Adam Smith in person would have called typical of a non-free market.
In the golden days (1999), Sony was making a nice 5 % profit margin on its Music department. Now (2017) it's only... 16 %!
You wouldn't know how expensive it is to develop streaming platforms and digital restrictions management, compared to printing discs and shipping them around the world.
The copyright directive allows for it: it forces people to buy licenses and expands the possibility of a collective license. On a global scale might be hard, but nationally it will be feasible.
Maybe pretty soon we'll be back to what is essentially the old world of display advertising, where you select some (kinds of) venues where to put your ads rather than attempt to chase specific demographics all over the internet.
If you want to be charitable, the "regulation" and "certainty" about filters is about the "requirement" that online services also implement an appeal/redress mechanism for mistaken takedowns.
As many have written, that's irrelevant because they will just say something has been removed for ToS violation.
The "plain text" file was presumably some debugging or webserver log. Elsevier recently made a similar mistake with Kibana, even making all such recorded passwords public. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19423770
Revenues in 2017 were still just 68.4% of those in 1999.
(Which still doesn't clarify whether the amounts are adjusted for inflation.)
This comes after the observation that
In 2017, the global recorded music market grew by 8.1%. This was the third consecu- tive year of global growth and one of the highest rates of growth since IFPI began tracking the market in 1997. Revenues increased in most markets and in eight of the global top 10 markets.
Curiously, the entire report never users the word "margin" and the only usage of the word "profit" is reserved for "large scale copyright infringement".
"What? When I sponsored that bill, I was told that free speech means I have the right to only read things I agree with, and everyone has to hear my opinion!"
Now it will be fun to see if someone magically happens to be given the key to open this safe:
Article 12
Claims to fair compensation
Member States may provide that where an author has transferred or licensed a right to a publisher, such a transfer or a licence constitutes a sufficient legal basis for the publisher to be entitled to a share of the compensation for the uses of the work made under an exception or limitation to the transferred or licensed right.
Do we have any actual numbers on this? What were the operating profit margins of the recording industry in 1999, the CD golden age? Are we sure they were lower than now?
I bet the majors get a bigger share now. Back then, they had to share a portion, however minimal, with distributors and shop-keepers. Now they only have to spend some money on a fingerprint database and then Google and Spotify wire them billions without the need to lift a finger.
AFP's plea to support article 11 so that war correspondents don't starve conveniently forgot to mention that story about the time they "stole" 1 million from a photographer.
A standard to chat with Facebook users was already available: XMPP worked until recently. The end-to-end encryption is provided by OMEMO on some clients (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMEMO ).
So it's pretty easy to increase the people's confidence that Facebook truly believes what it says: start by bringing back XMPP and contribute some patch to the most popular apps so that they work well with it. And yes, Google should do the same with its services.
The entire article however is based on the misconception that you can believe to what an European Parliament press release says this directive is about.
For instance, on article 11 the author didn't even understand that it's a right for publishers rather than authors: "Since I am a European citizen, Google must start paying me after 2020 for linking to this article too" (or maybe he was just being hyperbolic, if you want to be charitable).
The majors' opposition to the non-exception for parody is absurd. Did they believe to the press release by Voss which claimed there was an EU-wide exception? Do they actually worry about the "revenue" in the countries where the exception already exists? Are they just opposing anything that is even remotely close to the real world and common sense? Or is it all a game to make us believe that they oppose article 13.5, therefore it must be good and everyone else should support it?
The European Parliament media team must be livid: after spending millions on election-related social ads and destroying their credibility with the "dragon mob" article, a single letter by Weber was enough to gift Reda with a tweet twice as successful as their most successful tweet of an entire year (almost 10k RT, 300k views for the video).
On the post: The Sky Is Rising: The Entertainment Industry Is Thriving, Almost Entirely Because Of The Internet
Re: Physical distribution costs
I guess it wasn't clear. I was being sarcastic. Their margins tripled, things can't be that bad. If anything, they're close to margins which Adam Smith in person would have called typical of a non-free market.
On the post: The Sky Is Rising: The Entertainment Industry Is Thriving, Almost Entirely Because Of The Internet
Their cut of the profits
Ah, you point to the overall revenue but you forget that greedy Google is getting all the profits with its scandalous margins!
Compare
https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/library/presen/er/17q4_sony.pdf
https://www.sony.n et/SonyInfo/IR/library/ar/ar_sony_2000.pdf
In the golden days (1999), Sony was making a nice 5 % profit margin on its Music department. Now (2017) it's only... 16 %!
You wouldn't know how expensive it is to develop streaming platforms and digital restrictions management, compared to printing discs and shipping them around the world.
On the post: Copyright Enforcement Service Claims $600 Billion-Worth Of Images Are 'Stolen' Every Day
Re: We need a new collection society for this!
The copyright directive allows for it: it forces people to buy licenses and expands the possibility of a collective license. On a global scale might be hard, but nationally it will be feasible.
On the post: German Publishers Whine Because They Must Pay To Authors Misappropriated Copyright Levies
Reprobel
This is the famous "Reprobel" case which now article 16 of the copyright directive seeks to overturn. (Adding for the benefit of keyword searches.)
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-572/13
On the post: What If Google And Facebook Admitted That All This Ad Targeting Really Doesn't Work That Well?
Re: Monetisation boycotts and targeting
Apart from GDPR, I think a significant push against behavioral advertising might come from the ever-increasing amount of advertisers which wish to "boytcott" some websites, YouTube channels, you name it. Unilever has decided to switch to whitelisting:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-unilever-advertising/unilever-to-pick-trusted-publi shers-for-digital-advertising-idUSKCN1R900B
Maybe pretty soon we'll be back to what is essentially the old world of display advertising, where you select some (kinds of) venues where to put your ads rather than attempt to chase specific demographics all over the internet.
On the post: What If Google And Facebook Admitted That All This Ad Targeting Really Doesn't Work That Well?
Ad contrarian
"Ad contrarian" is an interesting blog devoted to exposing the silliness of the modern ad industry, I recommend it. An example take:
https://adcontrarian.blogspot.com/2015/07/what-if-targeting-doesnt-work.html
On the post: Supporters Of Article 13, After Denying It's About Filters, Now Say It's About Regulating Filters Which They Admit Don't Work
Redress mechanism
If you want to be charitable, the "regulation" and "certainty" about filters is about the "requirement" that online services also implement an appeal/redress mechanism for mistaken takedowns.
As many have written, that's irrelevant because they will just say something has been removed for ToS violation.
On the post: Facebook Screws Up Again
Password logging
The "plain text" file was presumably some debugging or webserver log. Elsevier recently made a similar mistake with Kibana, even making all such recorded passwords public.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19423770
On the post: As Recording Industry Announces Massive Growth, Why Do We Need Article 13 Again?
IFPI revenue comparisons to 1999
And his source was probably https://www.ifpi.org/downloads/GMR2018.pdf :
(Which still doesn't clarify whether the amounts are adjusted for inflation.)
This comes after the observation that
Curiously, the entire report never users the word "margin" and the only usage of the word "profit" is reserved for "large scale copyright infringement".
On the post: Rep. Devin Nunes Sues Internet Cow For Saying Mean Things About Him Online
First amendment
"What? When I sponsored that bill, I was told that free speech means I have the right to only read things I agree with, and everyone has to hear my opinion!"
On the post: As Recording Industry Announces Massive Growth, Why Do We Need Article 13 Again?
Re: Distribution of private copy levy
The Italian collecting society alone (SIAE) has hundreds of millions euro from those levies that they don't even manage to distribute. They just sit on their balance sheet rotting (p. 72
https://www.siae.it/sites/default/files/12_04_RENDICONTO_DI_GESTIONE_2017_Approvato_new.pdf ).
Now it will be fun to see if someone magically happens to be given the key to open this safe:
https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Copyright_Final_compromise.pdf
On the post: As Recording Industry Announces Massive Growth, Why Do We Need Article 13 Again?
Re: Profit margins
Do we have any actual numbers on this? What were the operating profit margins of the recording industry in 1999, the CD golden age? Are we sure they were lower than now?
I bet the majors get a bigger share now. Back then, they had to share a portion, however minimal, with distributors and shop-keepers. Now they only have to spend some money on a fingerprint database and then Google and Spotify wire them billions without the need to lift a finger.
On the post: As Recording Industry Announces Massive Growth, Why Do We Need Article 13 Again?
Party like it's 1999
The CEO of the Italian RIAA honestly acknowledges the growth, but complains we're still far from the total revenue peaks of 1999 (60 % of that level he says).
https://twitter.com/enzomazza/status/1106673240179642374
On the post: How To Actually Break Up Big Tech
Decentralized Web (D-Web)
There's a decentralized web event just today as well:
https://twitter.com/internetarchive/status/1105273467727822849
For context you can start e.g. from
https://blog.archive.org/2018/07/24/are-you-ready-decentralized-web-summit-2018-is-almost-here/
On the post: EU Parliament Paid News Publisher AFP To Create Bogus Propaganda Video In Favor Of EU Copyright Directive
It's all for the poor authors
AFP's plea to support article 11 so that war correspondents don't starve conveniently forgot to mention that story about the time they "stole" 1 million from a photographer.
On the post: Yes, Actually, There Is A Lot Of Good News In Zuckerberg's New Plans For Facebook
Messaging standard
A standard to chat with Facebook users was already available: XMPP worked until recently. The end-to-end encryption is provided by OMEMO on some clients (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMEMO ).
So it's pretty easy to increase the people's confidence that Facebook truly believes what it says: start by bringing back XMPP and contribute some patch to the most popular apps so that they work well with it. And yes, Google should do the same with its services.
On the post: Major Labels Split On Support For Article 13; As Music Publishers Whine That They Can't Make Money From Parodies
Re: Re: Re: Financial analysts on copyright directive
You didn't even try to read article 11, did you?
On the post: Major Labels Split On Support For Article 13; As Music Publishers Whine That They Can't Make Money From Parodies
Re: Financial analysts on copyright directive
The entire article however is based on the misconception that you can believe to what an European Parliament press release says this directive is about.
For instance, on article 11 the author didn't even understand that it's a right for publishers rather than authors: "Since I am a European citizen, Google must start paying me after 2020 for linking to this article too" (or maybe he was just being hyperbolic, if you want to be charitable).
On the post: Major Labels Split On Support For Article 13; As Music Publishers Whine That They Can't Make Money From Parodies
Reverse psychology
The majors' opposition to the non-exception for parody is absurd. Did they believe to the press release by Voss which claimed there was an EU-wide exception? Do they actually worry about the "revenue" in the countries where the exception already exists? Are they just opposing anything that is even remotely close to the real world and common sense? Or is it all a game to make us believe that they oppose article 13.5, therefore it must be good and everyone else should support it?
On the post: Supporters Of Article 13 Briefly Tried To Move Parliament Vote Up Before Scheduled Protests; Now Deny Plan That They Clearly Had
Golden for communication
The European Parliament media team must be livid: after spending millions on election-related social ads and destroying their credibility with the "dragon mob" article, a single letter by Weber was enough to gift Reda with a tweet twice as successful as their most successful tweet of an entire year (almost 10k RT, 300k views for the video).
Next >>