tickets which stop something bad for society (speeding a school zone, example) are good by nature, as they help to make us all generally safer. The idea of a fine (or any punishment) is to bring the offender back into the society norm. So the goal of writing ticket where tickets are merited is good. The goal of not being the one with the least tickets is bad, because it encourages writing tickets that are not valid or are a little chintzy.
By the way, if you are drinking, watch out for them smoking dogs, the might ignite you. :)
In this case, I think the problem is a system where the number of tickets written is shared amongst the officers, creating competition. While in the short run this might lead to more tickets, in the long run it leads to people cutting corners and taking chances not to be last. The goal is good, but the end results are poor.
I have worked in a retail company that paid commissions to agents only on certain things, but gave the agents some leeway in pricing the product. So what agents would do is determine the likelihood that people would buy the commissioned add-ons, and would lower the price of the product as far as they could go to "make the sale". Often, it would involve hosing customers into buying an extended warrantee or similar that they did not need (coverage already came with the product), but that would commission them at 35%.
Managers would mistakenly reward the top seller each month publically, reinforcing the desire for some to make the money no matter what, even if they have to lie and cheat to get it done. Some would say that this still happens today at big box electronic stores.
So the solution here might be to stop announcing the ticket counts, and eliminate the competition. That would likely cut the need or desire to game the system at the public's expense.
I feel this is what Mike is pushing for. Cut out the labels, cut out the middle men, cut out the licensing agencies, cut out copyright, cut out patents, and pretty much cut out all of the protections, rip it all down, and let Corey Smith serenade us.
It's more complicated, but that is pretty much the gist of it.
Are you were perhaps alluding to a culture of government corruption?
I don't think of it as corruption so much as misdirected goals. They have corrupted the system by setting ticketing goals, which the officers are meeting by abusing the CCTV system. It isn't corruption at the level of trying to make a personal buck, as much as institutional stupidity.
I agree the technology is being abused. My point is that it isn't about technology, because under the same circumstances without the technology, they would find some other abusive way to generate more tickets.
Example, where I live the local police force has added a whole task force for "public safety". It is pure horseshit, they are just the ticket writers. They hide behind buildings and in bushes, pulling people over for speeding, burned out tail lights, failing to signal a lane change, and all sort so other minor offenses. They were hired specifically with the objective to be "profitable".
They haven't done crap for public safety, but they are generating millions of dollars of positive cash flow for the city. The are particularly good at hiding just after highway off ramps and ticketing people who haven't slowed from 60 to 30 in 10 feet.
Effectively, they have found ways to abuse the system without having CCTV. I am sure that the UK police would find similar methods to obtain their results.
It is an abuse of technology? yes. Is the technology the problem? no.
And here you expose your true feelings. So, if someone doesnt make OBSCENE money, rich money, industry-level money, then they dont count.
Not at all.
My opinion has always been this: If you are going to disassemble a multi-billion dollar a year industry that employs untold tens of thousands of people all over the world, you should be replacing it with something that has the same financial impact. Just ripping it down to say you can rip it down doesn't cut it.
I have nothing against lower income artists doing well, but to use artists who are just about making a living in music isn't the best way to show the future. Those sorts of people have existing in the music world for decades. It isn't news.
What would be news is a series of new acts coming out of nowhere, without a real record deal, getting world wide radio play, getting on the tonight show, headlining a major concert tour, winning a grammy (or whatever) and taking the world by storm. We aren't seeing that at all. We are seeing the opposite, the "noise" rising a bit, a few more bands making enough to get a six pack of the "good stuff" instead of drinking two buck chuck, and that is about it.
The closest so far appears to be Corey Smith, although he still does a lot of things that don't make sense (like recording albums instead of just songs... albums are so 1970s). Plus it isn't like Corey Smith is knocking dead in Amsterdam or headlining at the Buddakan in Japan, is he?
We aren't seeing the replacement for the existing business, an that is very important.
Nope, just that it is the sort of comment that is just way over the line. If you cannot control yourself on something as simple as being civilized, how can I take anything else you say seriously?
I just think it is obnoxious and unkind, and well beyond what should be tolerated on here. But that is up to Mike, isn't it?
If RD's allegations about me being in "the industry" and taking orders from "overlords" was right, you would have a point. But as he is as wrong as they come, he doesn't get to call me out on it.
I am not sure if it's meds or a tin foil hat, but I know he is missing at least one of them.
RD, it is just an indication that Springsteen is under ASCAP. I wasn't suggesting that those particular songs are being collected for (although in theory, they actually would have collected... that is a whole other issue).
I don't think it is a problem of technology, it's a problem of their culture. If it wasn't CCTV, they would just walk down the streets randomly dropping parking tickets on cars or stopping people for jaywalking on green lights.
You need to separate the technology from the problem.
Hmm. I don't remember the requirement that we respond to everyone who makes this mistake, but we have in fact pointed out judges who have made this mistake.
Is it a mistake, or like some things just an indication on the winds of change? The supreme court isn't always opposed to reviewing it's own judgment over time, especially if there is an interesting case that comes with it. I have a feeling that ACTA might make that a need.
Reznor used the term "ironically". He was making fun of people who call it "stealing."
Sorry, I wasn't there, and except for your interpretation, I haven't seen it referred to as ironic. I have seen it referred to as "in anger" though.
No, you made a copy. That copy may or may not be illegal.
If you don't have rights to something, isn't it illegal?
Not my Grandmother. She read Techdirt up until her passing just a few months ago. She understood the difference between these two basic concepts. My grandma was smart. I guess yours might not be, but I do not see how that's my problem.
I would say if your grandma was exposed to this site long enough, she might get confused. We can agree that our grandmas would not agree.
There is a difference between quoting yourself and pointing to examples
What do you call it when you are doing both at the same time?
No, actually, the vast majority of them do not start with someone really famous.
Reznor, Josh Freese, Jill Sobule, Amanda Palmer... those are four "famous" ones you list. Plus any discussion that involves Nettwerk pretty much goes out the window, considering how well they profited of of Can-con laws to make their bones.
The others are less known, and have done well via the internet. "well" being a relative term, and they still represent a rounding error in the whole music industry.
To date I have not seen anyone do so clearly. A few folks such as yourself seem to have trouble with basic reading comprehension.
This is the dismissive comment that always makes me laugh. I don't have a problem with reading comprehension, I just don't follow your trail of breadcrumbs to your desired result. Seeing other people end up in the same place sort of reassures me.
Given your long history of professional failures and inability to adapt to changing markets
Umm, please do tell. I would like to know about some of my "professional failures". I would enjoy hearing what sort of stories you will make up about me.
Actually, he pointed out a few. How many musicians do you think there are in the US? In the world? How many bands do you think there are?
I could take The Grateful Dead, Phish, Captaine No, and Corey Smith alone, and people could be mistakenly lead to think that jam bands and solo guitar / harmonica players are the entire music business. They are but a very, very small sliver of the entire musical landscape, but using them alone I might come up with all sorts of odd theories about how the music industry should work.
heck, I might come up with business models like selling used VW buses or something.
The future isn't here yet. Right now the Reznors of the world are like the Stanley Steamers of the day. They seem like a good idea, but they are only a transition from the buggy to the real automobile. What you think is the future is only a transition.
If you truly believed that you would be against all the major record labels and collection societies like ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, and the others.
not at all. The UK report Mike put up a while back showed that licensing is a big part of the music industry income in the UK, and that commercial income (licensing and collections) was growing much faster than consumer spending.
If an artist contacts those agencies, I am sure they will get paid. I am sure the artists could hire lawyers if they registered and were not getting paid.
Someone has to collect the money. Without those organizations, nearly 25% of the UK music business would disappear overnight. That is artist money, song writer money, all gone. Are you suggesting that the UK business should take a 25% haircut just to be "pure"?
On the post: UK Whistleblowers Highlight The Dangers Of Widespread Police Surveillance/Database
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Culture?
By the way, if you are drinking, watch out for them smoking dogs, the might ignite you. :)
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then neither is yours. NEXT!
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgentaler
Apology accepted, thanks for being the bigger man (or is it woman) ;)
On the post: UK Whistleblowers Highlight The Dangers Of Widespread Police Surveillance/Database
Re: Re: Re: Re: Culture?
I have worked in a retail company that paid commissions to agents only on certain things, but gave the agents some leeway in pricing the product. So what agents would do is determine the likelihood that people would buy the commissioned add-ons, and would lower the price of the product as far as they could go to "make the sale". Often, it would involve hosing customers into buying an extended warrantee or similar that they did not need (coverage already came with the product), but that would commission them at 35%.
Managers would mistakenly reward the top seller each month publically, reinforcing the desire for some to make the money no matter what, even if they have to lie and cheat to get it done. Some would say that this still happens today at big box electronic stores.
So the solution here might be to stop announcing the ticket counts, and eliminate the competition. That would likely cut the need or desire to game the system at the public's expense.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where are you going with this?
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I feel this is what Mike is pushing for. Cut out the labels, cut out the middle men, cut out the licensing agencies, cut out copyright, cut out patents, and pretty much cut out all of the protections, rip it all down, and let Corey Smith serenade us.
It's more complicated, but that is pretty much the gist of it.
On the post: UK Whistleblowers Highlight The Dangers Of Widespread Police Surveillance/Database
Re: Re: Culture?
I don't think of it as corruption so much as misdirected goals. They have corrupted the system by setting ticketing goals, which the officers are meeting by abusing the CCTV system. It isn't corruption at the level of trying to make a personal buck, as much as institutional stupidity.
On the post: UK Whistleblowers Highlight The Dangers Of Widespread Police Surveillance/Database
Re: Re:
Example, where I live the local police force has added a whole task force for "public safety". It is pure horseshit, they are just the ticket writers. They hide behind buildings and in bushes, pulling people over for speeding, burned out tail lights, failing to signal a lane change, and all sort so other minor offenses. They were hired specifically with the objective to be "profitable".
They haven't done crap for public safety, but they are generating millions of dollars of positive cash flow for the city. The are particularly good at hiding just after highway off ramps and ticketing people who haven't slowed from 60 to 30 in 10 feet.
Effectively, they have found ways to abuse the system without having CCTV. I am sure that the UK police would find similar methods to obtain their results.
It is an abuse of technology? yes. Is the technology the problem? no.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not at all.
My opinion has always been this: If you are going to disassemble a multi-billion dollar a year industry that employs untold tens of thousands of people all over the world, you should be replacing it with something that has the same financial impact. Just ripping it down to say you can rip it down doesn't cut it.
I have nothing against lower income artists doing well, but to use artists who are just about making a living in music isn't the best way to show the future. Those sorts of people have existing in the music world for decades. It isn't news.
What would be news is a series of new acts coming out of nowhere, without a real record deal, getting world wide radio play, getting on the tonight show, headlining a major concert tour, winning a grammy (or whatever) and taking the world by storm. We aren't seeing that at all. We are seeing the opposite, the "noise" rising a bit, a few more bands making enough to get a six pack of the "good stuff" instead of drinking two buck chuck, and that is about it.
The closest so far appears to be Corey Smith, although he still does a lot of things that don't make sense (like recording albums instead of just songs... albums are so 1970s). Plus it isn't like Corey Smith is knocking dead in Amsterdam or headlining at the Buddakan in Japan, is he?
We aren't seeing the replacement for the existing business, an that is very important.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad waste of time.
grandmother wasn't smart: she didn't resort to ol' coat-hanger method
A classy person with classy opinions.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: :)
Oh look, hell freezing over.
Get use to it.
"The Anti-Mike" got It's poor widdle feelings hurt.
Boo fucking hoo hoo hoo.
Nope, just that it is the sort of comment that is just way over the line. If you cannot control yourself on something as simple as being civilized, how can I take anything else you say seriously?
I just think it is obnoxious and unkind, and well beyond what should be tolerated on here. But that is up to Mike, isn't it?
On the post: USTR Insists Gov't Isn't Keeping ACTA Secret
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ACTA
I am not sure if it's meds or a tin foil hat, but I know he is missing at least one of them.
On the post: Springsteen Pissed At ASCAP For Implying He Instigated Lawsuit Against Pub; Demands His Name Removed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blatant attempt to justify Big Media behavior
try spraying water on them, it usually puts them out.
On the post: Springsteen Pissed At ASCAP For Implying He Instigated Lawsuit Against Pub; Demands His Name Removed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Whistleblowers Highlight The Dangers Of Widespread Police Surveillance/Database
You need to separate the technology from the problem.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re:
Is it a mistake, or like some things just an indication on the winds of change? The supreme court isn't always opposed to reviewing it's own judgment over time, especially if there is an interesting case that comes with it. I have a feeling that ACTA might make that a need.
Reznor used the term "ironically". He was making fun of people who call it "stealing."
Sorry, I wasn't there, and except for your interpretation, I haven't seen it referred to as ironic. I have seen it referred to as "in anger" though.
No, you made a copy. That copy may or may not be illegal.
If you don't have rights to something, isn't it illegal?
Not my Grandmother. She read Techdirt up until her passing just a few months ago. She understood the difference between these two basic concepts. My grandma was smart. I guess yours might not be, but I do not see how that's my problem.
I would say if your grandma was exposed to this site long enough, she might get confused. We can agree that our grandmas would not agree.
There is a difference between quoting yourself and pointing to examples
What do you call it when you are doing both at the same time?
No, actually, the vast majority of them do not start with someone really famous.
Reznor, Josh Freese, Jill Sobule, Amanda Palmer... those are four "famous" ones you list. Plus any discussion that involves Nettwerk pretty much goes out the window, considering how well they profited of of Can-con laws to make their bones.
The others are less known, and have done well via the internet. "well" being a relative term, and they still represent a rounding error in the whole music industry.
To date I have not seen anyone do so clearly. A few folks such as yourself seem to have trouble with basic reading comprehension.
This is the dismissive comment that always makes me laugh. I don't have a problem with reading comprehension, I just don't follow your trail of breadcrumbs to your desired result. Seeing other people end up in the same place sort of reassures me.
Given your long history of professional failures and inability to adapt to changing markets
Umm, please do tell. I would like to know about some of my "professional failures". I would enjoy hearing what sort of stories you will make up about me.
Please. Do tell!
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: :)
I can accept a lot, but that is WAY out of bounds. I look forward to your apology.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re:
I could take The Grateful Dead, Phish, Captaine No, and Corey Smith alone, and people could be mistakenly lead to think that jam bands and solo guitar / harmonica players are the entire music business. They are but a very, very small sliver of the entire musical landscape, but using them alone I might come up with all sorts of odd theories about how the music industry should work.
heck, I might come up with business models like selling used VW buses or something.
The future isn't here yet. Right now the Reznors of the world are like the Stanley Steamers of the day. They seem like a good idea, but they are only a transition from the buggy to the real automobile. What you think is the future is only a transition.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re: Re:
not at all. The UK report Mike put up a while back showed that licensing is a big part of the music industry income in the UK, and that commercial income (licensing and collections) was growing much faster than consumer spending.
If an artist contacts those agencies, I am sure they will get paid. I am sure the artists could hire lawyers if they registered and were not getting paid.
Someone has to collect the money. Without those organizations, nearly 25% of the UK music business would disappear overnight. That is artist money, song writer money, all gone. Are you suggesting that the UK business should take a 25% haircut just to be "pure"?
Next >>