Plenty of people have responded Mike, so stop playing dumb.
You know exactly what happened.
Lowery wrote an article that magically destroyed all arguments against the evolution of technology and music business models. Thanks to his OPINION we can all rest easy now that SOPA will be passed in the US, ACTA will be accepted in the EU, and TPP everywhere else.
Hell, the Japanese read David's article and criminalized unauthorized downloads immediately. And that's just the beginning. Thanks to David Lowery, the RIAA completely won everything they wanted.
Ok, so I wasn't signed in when I posted "A better argument". I hate being an AC.
"It's the law of the land. Don't like the law? Change it through democratic means. You don't get to choose which laws suit your lifestyle and reject laws that don't. Neither do I."
One word reply: Prohibition.
Explanation: Think about it. The law wasn't repealed democratically. Years of crime and violence erupted, until Congress realized they had made a mistake. You have to look at how Prohibition came to be. A LOT of propaganda aimed at different groups and every group thinking that it wouldn't affect them. Then when the law is passed everyone finds out it affects everyone.
One date reply: 18 January 2012
Explanation: People were made aware of a bad law trying to be passed and they woke up and spoke up against it. Democracy? Not hardly. A bunch of congressmen saw the end of their meal tickets if they went against the people. The point being that when you legislate things that go against the nature of humanity and affect the majority in ways they see and feel, then you are going to have backlash.
I was going to respond to your second reason but it really isn't valid since my point only applies to music that has already been PURCHASED more than once.
But I have to respond to this...
"But I know brand new artists who are self releasing new music on vinyl. It sells until a fan uploads the vinyl as an mp3 on to a torrent site. On that day the vinyl sales basically end."
SERIOUSLY???? People who buy vinyl are not the average consumer. UGH, I can't even believe you made such an idiotic argument, it hurt my brain. If I have a turntable and I need vinyl to use it, why would I pirate an mp3??? If you are blaming digital piracy for a drop in vinyl sales, you're simply deluded.
I really hate when people suggest changing laws through the democratic process. Ok sure, let me just raise a few million dollars so I can bribe (lobby) 51 members of the US Senate. Hmmm maybe kickstarter...
I have to agree with you jupiterkansas, the newz that I get here is never a copy of another article (other than quotes), and there are links to related articles or sources.
AND as a bonus, the community often adds even more related material in the comments.
btw I'm listening to the video while typing this and I seriously cannot believe that middle school kids would behave like this with an adult. I'm not so sure that taking corporal punishment out of the school system was a good idea.
"The RIAA and music publishers, concerned that consumers' ability to make perfect digital copies of music would destroy the market for audio recordings..."
They were 100% correct. Consumers' ability to acquire perfect digital copies of music did destroy the market for audio recordings.
I'm guessing that when TVs first came on the market there was no way to turn the channel or turn them off. So they needed crazy laws and they just kinda stuck around.
That would be the only sane reason for such puritanical restrictions on content in the first place.
Maybe I'm the insane one, because when I find something objectionable that I don't want to look at or hear, I don't watch or listen. I can change the channel/station, close the window, turn off the device. It's never once occurred to me that I need to contact the legislature and demand that regulations be put in place to protect me from content that I don't have to experience.
"Did the top accessory makers pad Apple's pockets, or hardball negotiate for an incentive to drop the standard cable as a means of forcing consumers to buy new accessories? We're inclined to think so."
Didn't the DOJ already show us that Apple is not opposed to collusion in the market?
"To my knowledge a southern baptist from Georgia has never crashed a plane into a sky scraper, at least that I know of."
You are correct, no southern baptist from Georgia has ever crashed a plane into a sky scraper.
How many Iranian-Americans have gone around lynching innocent blacks or donning Klan uniforms and burning crosses on lawns and threatening blacks for no reason other than the color of their skin?
Georgia has one of the worst records of domestic terrorism in US history. Pull your head out of your ass and research the KKK and the amount of "terrorism" that organization has inflicted on US soil.
LMAO I may not agree with her opinion, but I have to say with a reply like that, she definitely has a great sense of humor and is welcome on my interwebs.
First of all, the sale being denied to the woman who was sending the iPad to Iran as a gift was in line with Apple policy. The matter of questioning the consumer about what she was going to do with her purchase based on the language she was speaking was definitely discriminatory, if that is how it happened.
Second we come to the next guy being denied purchase because he was an Iranian speaking Farsi, coupled with an Apple employee misquoting the Apple policy. "He reiterated (the policy) always will be to not sell to anyone from Iran." That is not exactly the Apple policy, but the employee did make the lawfully correct decision. Again the reason for questioning the origin of the consumer is discriminatory.
While it may be lawful and even prudent to not sell Apple products to Iranian citizens in the US, that does not mean that American citizens of Iranian descent are to be discriminated against unless they intend to export those products. That means that most Americans of Middle-Eastern descent face a lot of invasive questions when simply trying to purchase from Apple.
Personally I do not have faith that the average Apple employee knows the difference between Farsi, Urdu, or any other Arabic or Indo-Persian dialect. That would imply that quite a lot of Americans of Middle-Eastern descent face unwarranted discrimination when shopping in an Apple store.
The two cases cited in the original article were not discriminatory, but they do imply that there is a lot of discrimination that goes on in Apple stores before a purchase is allowed.
Just fill in the blank and ignore the reality. Or just read the last one.
Piracy is ...
Piracy is killing culture
Piracy is perpetuating plastic pop
Piracy is destroying music
Piracy is destroying film
Piracy is destroying journalism
Piracy is destroying books
Piracy is killing people
Piracy is eliminating jobs
Piracy is evil
Piracy is why we need a better navy
Piracy is the reason Google exists
Piracy is a great word to use when you need votes
Piracy is spreading culture around the planet at a rate that no one in history ever dreamed possible.
After reading David Lowery's letter, I have to say that I really sympathize with the guy. Personally I think that his viewpoint is dated and that most of his arguments have been refuted and thoroughly debunked, but near the end of his letter he did make a truly valid point, even if it was naive.
David can feel free to correct me if I read it wrong, but he seems to think that all would be well if there were some service that charged $18 -$20 per month that allowed subscribers access to their music over any platform.
If I interpreted him correctly, then I have to agree that such a service would be worth that fee.
I would caution David to really think about it though. He openly admits to the injustice that labels and the RIAA are well known for, and yet he would like to see a service that would collect a monthly fee for open access. I mentioned this was naive, because he only accounted for the royalties to the artists, as if the RIAA/lablels would not see themselves entitled to an equal or greater compensation for providing the service. That would instantly mean that this open access service would have to charge $36 - $40 per month. Even that fee might be worth it, but it leaves the question, who would create such a service?
Can the labels really get together and agree on how to create such a service and how to split up such a huge pile of money so that the artists are compensated fairly?
In short, I really think David is fighting the wrong fight. Instead of arguing the morality of what is afforded by shifts in the market and technology, he should be putting more effort into lobbying for creation of some sort of open access music service that is reasonably priced. People will pay for a music service that gives them what they want, so build it and they will come.
Oh and lastly, the "morality" argument just doesn't work with all of us people that have to work every day. We would love to work on Monday and be paid for that work for our life + 70 years, but that's not how it works for most people. If musicians have to get out and tour (work) more in order to be compensated, I don't think most people will find that to be an immoral expectation.
The pirates are the bad guys. Those children were pirating music by singing in public without paying for the right. Everyone has to pay if they want to publicly sing songs that they didn't create.
If people don't pay for these things then culture will die and no more songs will ever be made and we'll be stuck with only the songs humanity has produced up til now.
I'm not sure if there is a resounding opinion that music should be free. The problem is that most people like far more artists than they could possibly support.
That means that music needs to be priced reasonably. Music labels just have to accept that the old way is dead and gone and NOT coming back.
The labels need to experiment with elasticity and find the price-point that results in the largest profit. Currently they just think that the highest price the market will bear is the best. Music is not the same as a physical good.
One thing the labels have correct, music does have a HIGH value, it just also happens to have a LOW price. In an intelligent society that is a GOOD thing.
You have to love the cable companies' sheer arrogance. They cut into the telco market, which didn't expect VoIP adoption to occur as quickly as it did, and now they are underestimating cord cutting.
These "dinosaurs" depend on the public being afraid to migrate to new technology and for the most part they are justified in that thinking. The problem is that the internet has sped up the cycle of adoption. People communicate faster and to a broader audience now.
I don't think we will be seeing the "dinosaurs" going extinct, but they will have to evolve quicker than they want to.
On the post: Some Facts & Insights Into The Whole Discussion Of 'Ethics' And Music Business Models
Re: Re:
You know exactly what happened.
Lowery wrote an article that magically destroyed all arguments against the evolution of technology and music business models. Thanks to his OPINION we can all rest easy now that SOPA will be passed in the US, ACTA will be accepted in the EU, and TPP everywhere else.
Hell, the Japanese read David's article and criminalized unauthorized downloads immediately. And that's just the beginning. Thanks to David Lowery, the RIAA completely won everything they wanted.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: A better argument?
"It's the law of the land. Don't like the law? Change it through democratic means. You don't get to choose which laws suit your lifestyle and reject laws that don't. Neither do I."
One word reply: Prohibition.
Explanation: Think about it. The law wasn't repealed democratically. Years of crime and violence erupted, until Congress realized they had made a mistake. You have to look at how Prohibition came to be. A LOT of propaganda aimed at different groups and every group thinking that it wouldn't affect them. Then when the law is passed everyone finds out it affects everyone.
One date reply: 18 January 2012
Explanation: People were made aware of a bad law trying to be passed and they woke up and spoke up against it. Democracy? Not hardly. A bunch of congressmen saw the end of their meal tickets if they went against the people. The point being that when you legislate things that go against the nature of humanity and affect the majority in ways they see and feel, then you are going to have backlash.
I was going to respond to your second reason but it really isn't valid since my point only applies to music that has already been PURCHASED more than once.
But I have to respond to this...
"But I know brand new artists who are self releasing new music on vinyl. It sells until a fan uploads the vinyl as an mp3 on to a torrent site. On that day the vinyl sales basically end."
SERIOUSLY???? People who buy vinyl are not the average consumer. UGH, I can't even believe you made such an idiotic argument, it hurt my brain. If I have a turntable and I need vinyl to use it, why would I pirate an mp3??? If you are blaming digital piracy for a drop in vinyl sales, you're simply deluded.
I really hate when people suggest changing laws through the democratic process. Ok sure, let me just raise a few million dollars so I can bribe (lobby) 51 members of the US Senate. Hmmm maybe kickstarter...
On the post: Police Send SWAT Team, Break Into Wrong House (With TV Film Crew) In Response To Internet Troll
Aw c'mon
I'm at a loss. How do you top THAT???
I guess it's more difficult because its a cybercrime? Help me understand. Please.
On the post: Epic Win/Fail: Bullied Bus Monitor Sparks Overwhelming Support, But Also Death Threats To Kids
Re: Excellent point
AND as a bonus, the community often adds even more related material in the comments.
btw I'm listening to the video while typing this and I seriously cannot believe that middle school kids would behave like this with an adult. I'm not so sure that taking corporal punishment out of the school system was a good idea.
On the post: RIAA's New War: Shutting Down The Equivalent Of Internet VCRs
Re: Well to be fair...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act
"The RIAA and music publishers, concerned that consumers' ability to make perfect digital copies of music would destroy the market for audio recordings..."
They were 100% correct. Consumers' ability to acquire perfect digital copies of music did destroy the market for audio recordings.
And the world did not fall into chaos.
On the post: Speech-Via-Algorithm Is Still Speech, And Censoring It Is Still Censorship
Re: Corporations Aren't Human, Either
Google just needs an algowhatsitmabob to direct funds to the proper politicians.
On the post: Congressional Staffer Says SOPA Protests 'Poisoned The Well', Failure To Pass Puts Internet At Risk
uh oh
We knew it wouldn't be long before seeing The Carreon Effect in action.
On the post: Supreme Court Overrules Fine For Naked Butt On TV; Punts On 1st Amendment Question
Why we need those rules
That would be the only sane reason for such puritanical restrictions on content in the first place.
Maybe I'm the insane one, because when I find something objectionable that I don't want to look at or hear, I don't watch or listen. I can change the channel/station, close the window, turn off the device. It's never once occurred to me that I need to contact the legislature and demand that regulations be put in place to protect me from content that I don't have to experience.
On the post: New iPhone Connector Port Revealed, Thus Wiping Out Several Generations Of Accessories In One Fell Swoop
Really?
Didn't the DOJ already show us that Apple is not opposed to collusion in the market?
On the post: Apple Store Refuses To Sell To American Citizens Speaking Farsi In Case They Might Send iPhone To Iran
Re: Most offensive comment EVER!!!
You are correct, no southern baptist from Georgia has ever crashed a plane into a sky scraper.
How many Iranian-Americans have gone around lynching innocent blacks or donning Klan uniforms and burning crosses on lawns and threatening blacks for no reason other than the color of their skin?
Georgia has one of the worst records of domestic terrorism in US history. Pull your head out of your ass and research the KKK and the amount of "terrorism" that organization has inflicted on US soil.
On the post: Sherry Turkle Says Younger Kids Can't Handle Facebook Because Teens Fret About Looking Cool Online
Re: Re: Did anyone notice?????
IF that is actually her reply.
On the post: Sherry Turkle Says Younger Kids Can't Handle Facebook Because Teens Fret About Looking Cool Online
Did anyone notice?????
On the post: Apple Store Refuses To Sell To American Citizens Speaking Farsi In Case They Might Send iPhone To Iran
Right result, unsettling reason
Second we come to the next guy being denied purchase because he was an Iranian speaking Farsi, coupled with an Apple employee misquoting the Apple policy. "He reiterated (the policy) always will be to not sell to anyone from Iran." That is not exactly the Apple policy, but the employee did make the lawfully correct decision. Again the reason for questioning the origin of the consumer is discriminatory.
While it may be lawful and even prudent to not sell Apple products to Iranian citizens in the US, that does not mean that American citizens of Iranian descent are to be discriminated against unless they intend to export those products. That means that most Americans of Middle-Eastern descent face a lot of invasive questions when simply trying to purchase from Apple.
Personally I do not have faith that the average Apple employee knows the difference between Farsi, Urdu, or any other Arabic or Indo-Persian dialect. That would imply that quite a lot of Americans of Middle-Eastern descent face unwarranted discrimination when shopping in an Apple store.
The two cases cited in the original article were not discriminatory, but they do imply that there is a lot of discrimination that goes on in Apple stores before a purchase is allowed.
On the post: The New Elitism: File Sharing 'Created' Pop Music And Removing Gatekeepers Is 'Killing Culture'
Piracy is...
Piracy is ...
Piracy is killing culture
Piracy is perpetuating plastic pop
Piracy is destroying music
Piracy is destroying film
Piracy is destroying journalism
Piracy is destroying books
Piracy is killing people
Piracy is eliminating jobs
Piracy is evil
Piracy is why we need a better navy
Piracy is the reason Google exists
Piracy is a great word to use when you need votes
Piracy is spreading culture around the planet at a rate that no one in history ever dreamed possible.
On the post: David Lowery Wants A Pony
I have to sympathize
David can feel free to correct me if I read it wrong, but he seems to think that all would be well if there were some service that charged $18 -$20 per month that allowed subscribers access to their music over any platform.
If I interpreted him correctly, then I have to agree that such a service would be worth that fee.
I would caution David to really think about it though. He openly admits to the injustice that labels and the RIAA are well known for, and yet he would like to see a service that would collect a monthly fee for open access. I mentioned this was naive, because he only accounted for the royalties to the artists, as if the RIAA/lablels would not see themselves entitled to an equal or greater compensation for providing the service. That would instantly mean that this open access service would have to charge $36 - $40 per month. Even that fee might be worth it, but it leaves the question, who would create such a service?
Can the labels really get together and agree on how to create such a service and how to split up such a huge pile of money so that the artists are compensated fairly?
In short, I really think David is fighting the wrong fight. Instead of arguing the morality of what is afforded by shifts in the market and technology, he should be putting more effort into lobbying for creation of some sort of open access music service that is reasonably priced. People will pay for a music service that gives them what they want, so build it and they will come.
Oh and lastly, the "morality" argument just doesn't work with all of us people that have to work every day. We would love to work on Monday and be paid for that work for our life + 70 years, but that's not how it works for most people. If musicians have to get out and tour (work) more in order to be compensated, I don't think most people will find that to be an immoral expectation.
On the post: Slovak Collecting Society Sends Village Invoice For Singing Folk Song About Itself
Re:
If people don't pay for these things then culture will die and no more songs will ever be made and we'll be stuck with only the songs humanity has produced up til now.
It hurts to even parrot this ridiculous drivel.
On the post: Newspaper Puts Reporter On Leave For Posting Link To Article About His Employer On Facebook
I agree
On the post: Chris Evans' Lawyer Threatens Forum; Apparently Unfamiliar With Free Speech, Safe Harbors & Streisand Effect
heh
On the post: The Role Of 'Perceived Value' In Music Is Small And Fading Fast
???
That means that music needs to be priced reasonably. Music labels just have to accept that the old way is dead and gone and NOT coming back.
The labels need to experiment with elasticity and find the price-point that results in the largest profit. Currently they just think that the highest price the market will bear is the best. Music is not the same as a physical good.
One thing the labels have correct, music does have a HIGH value, it just also happens to have a LOW price. In an intelligent society that is a GOOD thing.
On the post: DOJ Realizes That Comcast & Time Warner Are Trying To Prop Up Cable By Holding Back Hulu & Netflix
LoL
These "dinosaurs" depend on the public being afraid to migrate to new technology and for the most part they are justified in that thinking. The problem is that the internet has sped up the cycle of adoption. People communicate faster and to a broader audience now.
I don't think we will be seeing the "dinosaurs" going extinct, but they will have to evolve quicker than they want to.
Next >>