After all this time you can't figure out the difference between value and price. So sad.
But you do want it for free. How much is the streaming service worth to you if the music isn't there? What if they were just streaming Marcus Carab rap songs all day? Where is the value?
You start out somewhat sensible (assuming, of course, that a variation of this question hadn't been explained to you a hundred times already) and quickly degrade into senselessness. I do want music for free. I never claimed otherwise. Although I value music, because otherwise I wouldn't listen to it, it has a price point somewhere around a fraction of a penny, to me. In fact, I detailed how, if I so desired, I could get all the music I wanted, relatively conveniently for the overhead cost of a smart phone, a computer, Internet access for both, and electricity! The problem is that there is too much music to sift through. (Thanks, copyright! /s) I have a hard time discovering new music that I like. This is a service that has value to me, AND a price point of around $10/mo. Without music to go along with it, it wouldn't be nearly as convenient, and it's true that it would probably cause me to stop using it, or at least my price point would go down for it, but at no time would my price point for copies of music go up.
See, you don't want streaming - you want the music.
I do want the streaming, and I'll tell you why: It was beaten (Figuratively) into my head that I don't own music. So, why the hell would I pay $1.29 for something I don't own? I'd much rather pay a flat monthly fee, since either way I end up owning nothing. Trust me, I listen to way more than 8 new songs a month. (My cell data usage is usually around 10 - 12 GB, mostly music.)
The "price" you assign to the content is incorrect, because without it, none of the services would have value.
The price I assign music is correct, because I get to set my price point, not you. If our price points differ, then I will be forced to go elsewhere to get my music. I know, I know: you don't think there should be competition to go to. I know, that in theory, I should be forced to pay what you demand or go without culture. However, in reality, there is direct competition, with a far better grasp of economics. It's high time you face reality, it will make this all very simple.
I don't want everything for free, I just want everything.
I could easily set up something where I download a song/album/entire-collection and have it upload automatically to, say, Google Music so I can listen to it anywhere. Hell, I can even kick off the download remotely. Free, yay!!
That being said, I pay $10/mo for a music streaming service, not for the content (I can get that for free), but for the service (in the form of music discovery, usually) and the convenience.
I don't want everything for free. I just want everything.
Here is my take. I don't agree them suing the people watching the streams but that being said, it is their business to do with as they please.
That's everyone else's take on it too. We all agree they are acting within their rights, but some of us think they're making a big mistake exercising those rights.
Be honest: you didn't read anything Mike typed, did you? I only ask, because it specifically addresses this argument.
For starters, the UFC seems to believe that there are two types of MMA fans: the type who buys the pay-per-views, and the type who watches them illegally. In reality, the line between those two groups is probably a lot blurrier than Zuffa realizes. Chances are very good that some of the people who have streamed events in the past have also bought them, and probably will buy them again at some point in the future. Maybe they only pony up the $55 for the pay-per-view when the card is good enough, or when they can get friends to split the cost with them. Maybe they stream it when they only care about one or two fights, or when they’re simply too strapped for cash to afford it.
Re: Re: Re: Sounds like a Masnick Conspiracy Theory to me..
If Senator Wyden has read the secret interpretation of the law and says that it is significantly different than how the law is interpreted by everyone else, then it's not a conspiracy theory. If you think Senator Wyden is a liar, then feel free to show your proof.
Either way, the only person "suggesting that there is some 'secret interpretation' of the law" is a person who has read it. Which makes it more than a "hunch" or a "guess".
Re: Sounds like a Masnick Conspiracy Theory to me..
As far as suggesting that there is some “secret interpretation” of the patriot act goes; that sounds like a farfetched conspiracy theory to me. What, if any, proof do you have of a “secret interpretation” other than a hunch or a guess? Please don’t tell me that you expect me to believe that just because the New York Times and the ACLU are suing the government that obviously means the US government is guilty as charged.
Remember those senators we're talking about? Yeah, they say that there is a secret interpretation, because they've read it.
I know it's a lot of work, but if you'd clicked through those pretty blue links, you'd eventually get to the non-techdirt source.
What you need to (try) and understand is that we, the consumer, have never really paid for music. We have paid for the service of getting it to us. 8-tracks, cassettes, CDs; they were all mediums to get the music to us- If we were buying the music, we wouldn't have bothered to go re-buy music once it came out on a new medium. We were (mostly) okay with paying a high price because we understood basic economics: it cost you money to make all those tapes/cds, and money on top of that to ship them all over the country, and you had our good will (past tense) and we knew that if you didn't turn a profit, you would stop pressing so many cds, and we would have a harder time finding music.
Fast forward to today (the last two decades, really): we *still* aren't paying for music, but we also don't need to pay you to get it to us. We don't need you to find music for us, we can do that ourselves. We refuse to pay for digital, non-scarce goods because we *still* have an understanding of basic economics; since you don't need to press thousands of cds, and you don't have to ship it to us, we know that you aren't charging us a fair price. It's so cheap to get music to us that people are willing to do it for you, at no cost to you. Then, in an epic temper tantrum, you started calling us thieves; you started fucking with our freedoms; you tried to destroy the Internet. The only commodity you had left, our goodwill, you pissed away suing a single mother, a college student, and a printer.
We aren't your enemy; basic economics is your enemy.
This is exactly my point! I would have no problem with RP contacting the media and saying that he had nothing to do with the video. If there were such a law as "fraudulent misrepresentation", I would have no issues with RP suing for it. If there were libel or slander, I would have no beef if he sued that.. THE *entire* point is that he, and via his lawyers, attempted to reveal the identity of someone who simply said something he didn't like, by using TRADEMARK law.
How do I know it's simply speech he doesn't like? Because if it were actually illegal, you bet your ass he would have sued under slander laws. He didn't. His lawyers used trademark law because they knew that the speech was legal. This is the entire point.
... and one other thing. If you don't think RP has more than his fair share of "crazy" supporters, you're willfully ignorant. I'm a RP supporter, and even I can admit that. Someone in this post said he would shoot Mike in the head! For stating facts! Ron Paul supporters do the most harm to Ron Paul.
The precise legal arguments may not be relevant to your point, but it is relevant to mine. If he feels he was slandered, he would have brought a slander suit. He didn't, he brought a trademark suit.
I really don't believe he was harmed by this video, that I hadn't heard of until he sued about it, nearby as much as his attempt to use trademark law to attempt to remove someone's right to anonymous free speech.
He's still got my vote, but I'm not going to pretend he is perfect. I'll call out his mistakes, just like anyone else.
On the post: We Don't Want Everything For Free. We Just Want Everything
Re: Re: Re:
But you do want it for free. How much is the streaming service worth to you if the music isn't there? What if they were just streaming Marcus Carab rap songs all day? Where is the value?
You start out somewhat sensible (assuming, of course, that a variation of this question hadn't been explained to you a hundred times already) and quickly degrade into senselessness. I do want music for free. I never claimed otherwise. Although I value music, because otherwise I wouldn't listen to it, it has a price point somewhere around a fraction of a penny, to me. In fact, I detailed how, if I so desired, I could get all the music I wanted, relatively conveniently for the overhead cost of a smart phone, a computer, Internet access for both, and electricity! The problem is that there is too much music to sift through. (Thanks, copyright! /s) I have a hard time discovering new music that I like. This is a service that has value to me, AND a price point of around $10/mo. Without music to go along with it, it wouldn't be nearly as convenient, and it's true that it would probably cause me to stop using it, or at least my price point would go down for it, but at no time would my price point for copies of music go up.
See, you don't want streaming - you want the music.
I do want the streaming, and I'll tell you why: It was beaten (Figuratively) into my head that I don't own music. So, why the hell would I pay $1.29 for something I don't own? I'd much rather pay a flat monthly fee, since either way I end up owning nothing. Trust me, I listen to way more than 8 new songs a month. (My cell data usage is usually around 10 - 12 GB, mostly music.)
The "price" you assign to the content is incorrect, because without it, none of the services would have value.
The price I assign music is correct, because I get to set my price point, not you. If our price points differ, then I will be forced to go elsewhere to get my music. I know, I know: you don't think there should be competition to go to. I know, that in theory, I should be forced to pay what you demand or go without culture. However, in reality, there is direct competition, with a far better grasp of economics. It's high time you face reality, it will make this all very simple.
I don't want everything for free, I just want everything.
On the post: We Don't Want Everything For Free. We Just Want Everything
Re:
That being said, I pay $10/mo for a music streaming service, not for the content (I can get that for free), but for the service (in the form of music discovery, usually) and the convenience.
I don't want everything for free. I just want everything.
On the post: We Don't Want Everything For Free. We Just Want Everything
Re:
On the post: We Don't Want Everything For Free. We Just Want Everything
Re:
On the post: UFC Makes The Awful Decision To Sue Some Of Its Biggest Fans
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UFC Makes The Awful Decision To Sue Some Of Its Biggest Fans
Re:
That's everyone else's take on it too. We all agree they are acting within their rights, but some of us think they're making a big mistake exercising those rights.
On the post: UFC Makes The Awful Decision To Sue Some Of Its Biggest Fans
Re:
For starters, the UFC seems to believe that there are two types of MMA fans: the type who buys the pay-per-views, and the type who watches them illegally. In reality, the line between those two groups is probably a lot blurrier than Zuffa realizes. Chances are very good that some of the people who have streamed events in the past have also bought them, and probably will buy them again at some point in the future. Maybe they only pony up the $55 for the pay-per-view when the card is good enough, or when they can get friends to split the cost with them. Maybe they stream it when they only care about one or two fights, or when they’re simply too strapped for cash to afford it.
On the post: Senators Tell The Obama Administration To Reveal Its Secret Interpretation Of The Patriot Act
Re: Re: Re: Sounds like a Masnick Conspiracy Theory to me..
Either way, the only person "suggesting that there is some 'secret interpretation' of the law" is a person who has read it. Which makes it more than a "hunch" or a "guess".
On the post: The Pirate Bay Claims It's Going To Host The Site Via Drones Flying Over International Waters
Re:
Do you really believe the nonsense you spew?
On the post: Senators Tell The Obama Administration To Reveal Its Secret Interpretation Of The Patriot Act
Re: Sounds like a Masnick Conspiracy Theory to me..
Remember those senators we're talking about? Yeah, they say that there is a secret interpretation, because they've read it.
I know it's a lot of work, but if you'd clicked through those pretty blue links, you'd eventually get to the non-techdirt source.
On the post: No, Saying Musicians Must 'Add Value' Does Not Mean Music Has No Value
Re: Re:
On the post: No, Saying Musicians Must 'Add Value' Does Not Mean Music Has No Value
Re: Re: Re: I'm on Castle's side. 100%
On the post: No, Saying Musicians Must 'Add Value' Does Not Mean Music Has No Value
Re:
Fast forward to today (the last two decades, really): we *still* aren't paying for music, but we also don't need to pay you to get it to us. We don't need you to find music for us, we can do that ourselves. We refuse to pay for digital, non-scarce goods because we *still* have an understanding of basic economics; since you don't need to press thousands of cds, and you don't have to ship it to us, we know that you aren't charging us a fair price. It's so cheap to get music to us that people are willing to do it for you, at no cost to you. Then, in an epic temper tantrum, you started calling us thieves; you started fucking with our freedoms; you tried to destroy the Internet. The only commodity you had left, our goodwill, you pissed away suing a single mother, a college student, and a printer.
We aren't your enemy; basic economics is your enemy.
On the post: Sorry Ron Paul, You Don't Get To Abuse Trademark Law To Unveil Anonymous Internet Users
Re: Re: Re: Re: Odd Ron Paul behavior
On the post: Sorry Ron Paul, You Don't Get To Abuse Trademark Law To Unveil Anonymous Internet Users
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How do I know it's simply speech he doesn't like? Because if it were actually illegal, you bet your ass he would have sued under slander laws. He didn't. His lawyers used trademark law because they knew that the speech was legal. This is the entire point.
... and one other thing. If you don't think RP has more than his fair share of "crazy" supporters, you're willfully ignorant. I'm a RP supporter, and even I can admit that. Someone in this post said he would shoot Mike in the head! For stating facts! Ron Paul supporters do the most harm to Ron Paul.
On the post: Sorry Ron Paul, You Don't Get To Abuse Trademark Law To Unveil Anonymous Internet Users
Re: Uhh... is Ron Paul a Lawyer?
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: Re: It is still theft...
Thanks for playing.
On the post: Sorry Ron Paul, You Don't Get To Abuse Trademark Law To Unveil Anonymous Internet Users
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I really don't believe he was harmed by this video, that I hadn't heard of until he sued about it, nearby as much as his attempt to use trademark law to attempt to remove someone's right to anonymous free speech.
He's still got my vote, but I'm not going to pretend he is perfect. I'll call out his mistakes, just like anyone else.
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
Noteworthy
I feel like his problem isn't piracy.
On the post: Delusions Of Grandeur: Yahoo Officially Sues Facebook, Laughably Argues That Facebook's Entire Model Is Based On Yahoo
Re:
Fix that, and it becomes quite useful and engaging.
Next >>