The case never gets to court because the businesses they extort don't have enough money to argue their case. It's irrelevant whether you play or don't play music covered by PRO's, they'll bully you into paying knowing you don't have the money to defend yourself.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ^7 Getting a law passed may make it leagal but it doesn't make it right
The artist has already been paid for the work they did either through payment for the copy or for radio play, or through various other models discussed on Techdirt. The only reason you'd see the model change to that is from labels demanding laws sustain their revenue streams for no other reason than just 'cause.
In non-copyrighted industries (and even in some copyrighted ones), you do not get further payment just because someone was able to make money off of or using your product as part of their business. I'm sure you'd be one of the first in line in claiming the second hand sales are a problem as the video game industry has been claiming because the likes of Gamestop make money from them and publishers don't.
Re: Re: Re: ^7 Getting a law passed may make it leagal but it doesn't make it right
Is it just as ludicrous to say that songwriters should have no rights regarding a dance hall making money hand over fist based on the performance of their songs?
They shouldn't. If a song has already been paid for either for that particular copy or for it to be broadcast over public radio, there's no reason someone should make even more money purely because a business uses those.
Because paying for a mass produced copy of a work created months ago where the artist/author does dozens (at least) of interviews to plug the book, does all sorts of adverts and generally doing nothing but spending their time promoting it is so much more direct and less crassly commercial, especially with the inclusion of third parties like publishers and labels that set monopoly rates siphoning money from the creator.
the only way for the author to make money is by selling some sort of scarce good... other than the book.
The book provides the platform from which to make money. Digital books are the cheap input that allow you to make money through various other means.
To me, the convenience of the transaction provides the value.
In other words, that non scarce good you bought wasn't the book, but convenience. Funny how your point reinforces what's being said isn't it?
but a service without content isn't a service at all.
A service with content I can get elsewhere is a useless service. Unless of course the service offers me something else, like giving me ways to watch movies in the way I want. Quickly. Easily. Conveniently. A service without a unique benefit isn't a service at all.
How is this so significantly different from every other browsers automatic update system that it allows them to apparently send anything Google wants and such things that allow it to apparently lead to major security concerns?
Whe I read that you cannot count those that wouldn't have bought an original product I see that as a lost sale. Simply because if they wouldn't have bought the original, then they have absolutely no right buying a counterfiet just because it was prices cheaper.
You have no right to go to McDonalds. If you want a burger, go to one of Gordon Ramsays restaurants. Every time you buy a burger from McDonalds, it's a lost sale to Gordon Ramsay.
If "natural law" exists, then it is reasonable to claim that the product of my own mind is my property, and should be disseminated only as I see fit.
Please tell me, at what point has man ever had the natural ability to dictate this to such an extreme degree as to restrict people from copying or reselling a work that they already own? At what point have laws dictated that a man should not have control over his own possessions because he supposedly licensed them, and not bought them outright?
The only example I can think of is copyright law, and I don't think that was ever founded on the principle that you're entitled to control works even after they've left your possession, nor that they're an inalienable right for you to control distribution.
You price books according to market demand and cost of reproduction (supply). Hopefully the value you provide will allow you to charge higher than marginal cost so as to make back any fixed costs, but it is not the most important factor in the final pricing. Marginal cost plays a much larger role than fixed cost does in the pricing of your books.
No. Royalties and other other costs constitute a significant portion of the cost.
Perhaps I should've just said marginal cost, which is generally what I intended as royalties would most likely be included in that (or would it be part of fixed cost?)
The price of a book is a balancing act between its costs (both material and royalties and others) and the amount of money that most people are willing to pay. (The amount of value received.
Which was my general point, that the cost isn't defined so much as by the cost to produce the book in the first place, but closer to the cost to produce each new copy (value received was assumed as a given). Books aren't so cheap because publishers are some how selling them for less than they're worth or work fundamentally different to any other product as Memyself seemed to be suggesting:
No. But they also get to charge full value for services rendered. An author who charges a customer for a novel at the rate of minimum wage will not have any customers. You're trying to compare apples and oranges. That simply does not work.
Like any good, books are sold closer to the cost to produce each new one, with which the creator (writer, publisher) hopes to make enough from assuming customers value it enough to charge a price above marginal cost.
I also think I'm a pretty smart guy, I'm at the top of my class, the judge I work for values my intellect, and I don't run away from fights. If anything, I've shown my ability and desire to back up my assertions with research and authority.
The only citation I've seen from you is one other people pointed you to, which you then quoted but did so in a way to suggest that this backed the idea that copyright was needed and was somehow reputable research, when it was a simple statement from a judge that had no relation at all to any research or historical insight that suggested copyright was needed.
Not to mention your repeated reliance on circular logic and requiring other commentators and Mike to act as your dancing monkey because you're bored and want some help with your IP law studies but can't be bothered to do the research yourself. Instead, demand other people always give you citations even if you never give any yourself and make what are obviously incorrect assertions even without appeals to authority, citations and only a basic knowledge in copyright history.
In the past few days, I've called Mike out three times without a single response from him.
b) It's the weekend. Like a lot people on the weekend, Friday evenings, Saturdays and Sundays are days off work and to do other things than your job, especially if they involve bowing to demands by random commentators.
You've made various claims of which you have yet to cite in any way shape or form. Of course, it's OK for you to ignore that and move on, but if someone else even so much as breathes something sounding like opinion, it is invalid and without any merit, and they must immediately cite sources at your whim.
On the post: Why Are Entertainment Industry Spokespeople So Scared To Debate Critics?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why?
On the post: After Hundreds Of 'Empire State Of Mind' Parodies... Why Does EMI Suddenly Take One Down?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx8CZyFM4b4
On the post: Is It Defamation To Call The Couple Who Got Into White House Dinner 'Party Crashers'?
Re: Re:
On the post: A Day In The Life Of Legalized Extortion: How The BMI Shakedown Works
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: A Day In The Life Of Legalized Extortion: How The BMI Shakedown Works
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ^7 Getting a law passed may make it leagal but it doesn't make it right
In non-copyrighted industries (and even in some copyrighted ones), you do not get further payment just because someone was able to make money off of or using your product as part of their business. I'm sure you'd be one of the first in line in claiming the second hand sales are a problem as the video game industry has been claiming because the likes of Gamestop make money from them and publishers don't.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/29119/Analyst_Used_Game_Market_Significant_Drain_On_Sof tware_Sales
On the post: It's Back: Totally Unnecessary And Damaging Fashion Copyright Bill Reintroduced
Re: thrives?
It's funny because you're post is made of fantasy.
On the post: A Day In The Life Of Legalized Extortion: How The BMI Shakedown Works
Re: Re: Re: ^7 Getting a law passed may make it leagal but it doesn't make it right
They shouldn't. If a song has already been paid for either for that particular copy or for it to be broadcast over public radio, there's no reason someone should make even more money purely because a business uses those.
On the post: Connecting Authors To Tangible Goods They Can Sell?
Re: Re: Re:
The book provides the platform from which to make money. Digital books are the cheap input that allow you to make money through various other means.
In other words, that non scarce good you bought wasn't the book, but convenience. Funny how your point reinforces what's being said isn't it?
On the post: Dear Jeff Zucker, Whether You Like It Or Not, Content Will Stay Free
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That IS the service.
A service with content I can get elsewhere is a useless service. Unless of course the service offers me something else, like giving me ways to watch movies in the way I want. Quickly. Easily. Conveniently. A service without a unique benefit isn't a service at all.
On the post: Microsoft Debated Privacy vs. Advertisers In Internet Explorer... And Advertisers Won
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Microsoft Debated Privacy vs. Advertisers In Internet Explorer... And Advertisers Won
Re: Admittedly, other browsers don't offer such privacy features standard either !!!! But I hate MS so here read this
On the post: Hey NY Times: Can You Back Up The Claim Of $200 Billion Lost To Counterfeiting?
Re: Re: Re: I'll call you out little mikee
You have no right to go to McDonalds. If you want a burger, go to one of Gordon Ramsays restaurants. Every time you buy a burger from McDonalds, it's a lost sale to Gordon Ramsay.
On the post: Yes, People Can Comment On Content Business Models Without Having Produced Hit Content
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please tell me, at what point has man ever had the natural ability to dictate this to such an extreme degree as to restrict people from copying or reselling a work that they already own? At what point have laws dictated that a man should not have control over his own possessions because he supposedly licensed them, and not bought them outright?
The only example I can think of is copyright law, and I don't think that was ever founded on the principle that you're entitled to control works even after they've left your possession, nor that they're an inalienable right for you to control distribution.
On the post: An Open iPhone App Market That Doesn't Require Jailbreaking... And Which Apple Can't Stop
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KHTML
On the post: Yes, People Can Comment On Content Business Models Without Having Produced Hit Content
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You price books according to market demand and cost of reproduction (supply). Hopefully the value you provide will allow you to charge higher than marginal cost so as to make back any fixed costs, but it is not the most important factor in the final pricing. Marginal cost plays a much larger role than fixed cost does in the pricing of your books.
On the post: Yes, People Can Comment On Content Business Models Without Having Produced Hit Content
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps I should've just said marginal cost, which is generally what I intended as royalties would most likely be included in that (or would it be part of fixed cost?)
Which was my general point, that the cost isn't defined so much as by the cost to produce the book in the first place, but closer to the cost to produce each new copy (value received was assumed as a given). Books aren't so cheap because publishers are some how selling them for less than they're worth or work fundamentally different to any other product as Memyself seemed to be suggesting:
Like any good, books are sold closer to the cost to produce each new one, with which the creator (writer, publisher) hopes to make enough from assuming customers value it enough to charge a price above marginal cost.
On the post: Yes, People Can Comment On Content Business Models Without Having Produced Hit Content
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope, it's because it's closer to the cost of reproduction. Fixed cost doesn't come into it.
On the post: Can The Operators Of A Site Targeted By Homeland Security Crowdsource A Defense?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only citation I've seen from you is one other people pointed you to, which you then quoted but did so in a way to suggest that this backed the idea that copyright was needed and was somehow reputable research, when it was a simple statement from a judge that had no relation at all to any research or historical insight that suggested copyright was needed.
http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100720/17383310297#c868
Not to mention your repeated reliance on circular logic and requiring other commentators and Mike to act as your dancing monkey because you're bored and want some help with your IP law studies but can't be bothered to do the research yourself. Instead, demand other people always give you citations even if you never give any yourself and make what are obviously incorrect assertions even without appeals to authority, citations and only a basic knowledge in copyright history.
a) Mike does this as part of a job.
http://www.floor64.com/
b) It's the weekend. Like a lot people on the weekend, Friday evenings, Saturdays and Sundays are days off work and to do other things than your job, especially if they involve bowing to demands by random commentators.
On the post: Can The Operators Of A Site Targeted By Homeland Security Crowdsource A Defense?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
God forbid you be an AC and say something!
On the post: Can The Operators Of A Site Targeted By Homeland Security Crowdsource A Defense?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>