The shoemaker doesn't ask individual people to employ him, he makes shoes and he sells them. If he doesn't make shoes people like, he starves and becomes a garbage picker or something. If he makes what people like, and they buy it, then he lives well.
If I run a store, if I sell the things people want to buy, they buy it and I make money. If they don't, I am a garbage picker. I don't give my stuff away and hope that people will make enough donations to pay my time.
Musicians make music. The record that music, and they sell copies of that music. It's the nature of what they do.
A writer writes things. He then sells copies of those writing, or sell the entire writing to someone else who then sells copies. It's the nature of what they do.
It is sad to think that all of music will no longer be about making music, but about begging for cash and trying to sell trinkets. I value the music way more than I value the trinkets or another series of beggers trying to wash my virtual windows with a dirty squeegee.
Paul, sorry, but it is only the truth as I learned it. WEP is only insecure when the connection is in active use, as it can expose certain packets which can be used to determine the WEP key.
The overhead in P2P is huge (compared to other file transfers).
Bottlenecks exist when large amounts of data attempt to transit network areas that were not designed for them. More server environments are created to allow the fast flow of short connection packets in and long replies out (and to allow multiple connections for various pieces). I can download much more quickly directly from a source than I can from a distributed collection of hard to access peers spread all over the world.
I think this guy hit it pretty much right on the head.
He even managed to point out that Facepalm Palmer is pretty much leading the way to musical begging as a way to pay for artists. Mike, you can explain to everyone what the significance of begging in a society is, and how that reflects the lack of health in a system.
I think at this point, most of the players are seeing plenty of ways to get attention, but few ways to make actual money.
JAC, goods have both a retail price and a value. They are not tied together as a hard pairing, but they are elastically connected.
Value helps to create the retail price. Something that has no value will likely have no good retail price, as nobody will want to own it, purchase it, or use it. Value is in the end part of "demand", see Supply V Demand.
The problem is when there is infinite supply, no matter what you put on the other side the effective price is zero. The value may be higher than zero, but the longer the price remains at zero and the supply remains huge, the more likely the demand is satisfied, which elastically pulls down the value as well.
There will always be some sort of personal value to things, as in "I value Trent Reznor's music", but the longer it sells for nothing, the more likely that people will assign it less actual value.
As for price differences, if I go to supermarket A, Coke is 1.99 cents for 2 liters. In the store across the street, it is on special for 99 cents. Things are just like that.
Actually, I don't insult anyone who doesn't insult me first, except for RD who has insulted me enough in the last year that he earns it, that and all his anonymous postings. He is so transparent!
Any treaty, once ratified, doesn't change law, but it certainly can add to it, create restrictions, or limitations.
I also think that much of this stuff is very, very, very speculative and based on leaks and other misinformation. It's about on the same level as the weekly Tom Cruise is dead rumors that circulate.
P2P is not faster, because (a) it has a fairly high overhead (plenty of connection requests, many that get denied), and (b) because it often uses network connections which are not optimized for moving data in that direction.
I don't think anyone is saying that the protocol in and of itself is illegal, but it is the "micro sized crack baggy" of illegal file sharing. While the very few who actually use the protocol legally might be punished, turning off P2P (or significantly limiting the packets) would go a long way to limiting illegal file sharing. From all reports, the amount of legal P2P traffic is very low.
Open source would need to learn how to better distribute their software without it. No doubt someone would come up with a better way. I am thinking that a registered peering system (ghost to ghost hookup) might work out better.
Every device connected to the internet is a peer
Not really. There are plenty of peers and peering points online, but end user computers are not by design peers. There is nothing in the IP protocol that suggests that end user devices are also traffic peers, because they are not. It is only additional protocols that have been created to overlay the IP protocols that have created this. Most end user network configurations don't provide balanced bandwidth (async rather than sync), often with ratios of 10 to 1 on up/down. Networks often are not configured or designed to support user to user connections, often requiring long routes to get from one computer to the next, even if they are located side by side.
In part, that nature of the networks is another reason P2P isn't very effecient, because it often uses much more network resources to accomplish a goal. My ISP has about 8 to 10 steps to get out of their network, and a P2P connection to a friend on their network would likely require 20 such steps, where as my connection to Techdirt is only about 3 or 4 steps outside of the network.
I would say if ISPs are forced to be 100% packet agnostic that they will have to significantly raise the amount of network connectivity that they buy, and make significant change to their networks, and those expenses would have to be passed on to the end users. Would you like your internet connection cost to double?
Do you really think that any third party is going to come in and entirely wire up washington DC to compete? Do you think they could do it in a cost effective way?
Modplan, torrents don't exist for the simple act of duplicating files, you could do that much more efficiently with a direct connection (example FTP) between the file holder and the destination that the duplicate file would go.
The idea of torrents was created to get around the Napster issue, that a central clearing house to connect the sender and receiver of a file was effectively illegal. Torrents attempt to get around this by using a fairly inefficient protocol of distributed and unreliable nodes in an attempt to create legal obfuscation. It has pretty much failed as well, as most torrent sites exist only in countries that are tolerant or because they have yet to be specifically attacked legally.
P2P by it's very nature is a very inefficient way to move data, it is slower than direct connection, requires a ton more overhead, and very often overloads networks by using them in ways there were not created to go. With the current cost of server bandwidth so low (and getting lower), there is little financial benefit to using P2P for distribution of commercial work. What you save in cost you lose in control, which is always an issue.
In the end, no provider should be obliged to be part of illegal activity. While there is a small part of P2P traffic that is legal, it is clear from studies and to the naked eye that much of what is going on is illegal or "infringing". This isn't a question of language, it's a question of reality.
Ask ALL customers? How? There's a large proportion who would never respond. How would you ask?
Not ALL as in each one individually, but a sample that is larger than only a sampling of digital music buyers.
Digital music is still only a small part of total music sales. It would be like saying you sampled soft drink preferences from the market, when the only people you asked are people walking by holding Freska bottles. The sample is too narrow to get a full and reasonable result.
As for your purchases, have you considered that perhaps you have reached the saturation point in your collection? One of the amazing things about "long tail" stuff is that over time, your personal demand for older material drops off. Now you are only purchasing or looking at mostly newer material. So your declining in purchasing might have more to do with a lack of new material you like, than anything else. If you really wanted something, you would pay the (slightly) higher price for it today.
I think that this article is somewhat misleading, and points to Obama where the pointing isn't particularly valid.
The patent was filed February 24, 2006, almost 4 years before Obama was elected and likely about the same amount of time before Katie Stanton came on staff. The patent has nothing to do with Obama, it is something that would be mentioned in passing, not as the up front issue - unless you are trying to create an issue where none exists.
The patent isn't hers, it is assigned to Google, and was likely part of her "work product", along with the others listed. I suspect she will receive no benefit from the patent, not will she in any way control it.
The story reads more like another slap at Obama, rather than anything informative.
If all of those are available on torrent, the only reason people are paying it to get the physical packaging. The content no longer has all that much retail value.
There are some that will always pay for it, in the same manner that some people will always pay for autographed crap and artificially scarce hoodies.
What about the numerous cinema screenings that pop up every year - did nobody attend them
For a few cult films, that is still possible. But most of the repertory theaters have long since dried up and gone away, replaced by video stores in the past and torrents today. You are pointing to something that is truly a buggy whip business now as a result of torrent distribution.
Richard, I think that if torrents were only used to view what has already gone by, there might be less of an issue. Except of course that the resale market on TV series (syndication) makes it clear that there is still enough value and demand to defeat even that argument.
Further, torrents are often used to bring content into areas where it has not yet been shown. The UK, example, is about a full season behind on CSI, if I remember correctly. Australia is often out of sync because their seasons are reversed, etc.
Torrents ignore national boundaries, which often means content ends up in a market before it is officially released. This can only have a negative effect on the value that broadcasters will pay for the rights to these shows.
The BBC iplayer is a good example of the GOOD uses of P2P style distribution, as the rights holder is deciding what is out there, not the viewers themselves. The BBC doesn't show up at people's doors and take their cars or children, why should the viewers be able to tell the Beeb what to put online?
Sorry, but anyone can produce merch at a low price, the public appearances aren't worth much in reality (except to the stars of the show themselves), etc. After all, if people are going to steal (judge's words) the content, do you think they will really worry about producing fake merch either?
On the post: Obama's Director Of Citizen Participation Patents Displaying News With Financial Info
Re: Re:
On the post: Yes, If You Don't Do Anything, You Shouldn't Expect People To Just Give You Money
Re: Re:
The shoemaker doesn't ask individual people to employ him, he makes shoes and he sells them. If he doesn't make shoes people like, he starves and becomes a garbage picker or something. If he makes what people like, and they buy it, then he lives well.
If I run a store, if I sell the things people want to buy, they buy it and I make money. If they don't, I am a garbage picker. I don't give my stuff away and hope that people will make enough donations to pay my time.
Musicians make music. The record that music, and they sell copies of that music. It's the nature of what they do.
A writer writes things. He then sells copies of those writing, or sell the entire writing to someone else who then sells copies. It's the nature of what they do.
It is sad to think that all of music will no longer be about making music, but about begging for cash and trying to sell trinkets. I value the music way more than I value the trinkets or another series of beggers trying to wash my virtual windows with a dirty squeegee.
On the post: Once Again, Be Careful What You Wish For With Net Neutrality Once The Lobbyists Get Done With It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The overhead in P2P is huge (compared to other file transfers).
Bottlenecks exist when large amounts of data attempt to transit network areas that were not designed for them. More server environments are created to allow the fast flow of short connection packets in and long replies out (and to allow multiple connections for various pieces). I can download much more quickly directly from a source than I can from a distributed collection of hard to access peers spread all over the world.
On the post: But, Wait, Didn't The Entertainment Industry Insist ACTA Wouldn't Change US Law?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Yes, If You Don't Do Anything, You Shouldn't Expect People To Just Give You Money
He even managed to point out that Facepalm Palmer is pretty much leading the way to musical begging as a way to pay for artists. Mike, you can explain to everyone what the significance of begging in a society is, and how that reflects the lack of health in a system.
I think at this point, most of the players are seeing plenty of ways to get attention, but few ways to make actual money.
On the post: But, Wait, Didn't The Entertainment Industry Insist ACTA Wouldn't Change US Law?
Re:
On the post: But, Wait, Didn't The Entertainment Industry Insist ACTA Wouldn't Change US Law?
Re:
On the post: Of Course Most Content Shared On BitTorrent Infringes; But That's Meaningless
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Value helps to create the retail price. Something that has no value will likely have no good retail price, as nobody will want to own it, purchase it, or use it. Value is in the end part of "demand", see Supply V Demand.
The problem is when there is infinite supply, no matter what you put on the other side the effective price is zero. The value may be higher than zero, but the longer the price remains at zero and the supply remains huge, the more likely the demand is satisfied, which elastically pulls down the value as well.
There will always be some sort of personal value to things, as in "I value Trent Reznor's music", but the longer it sells for nothing, the more likely that people will assign it less actual value.
As for price differences, if I go to supermarket A, Coke is 1.99 cents for 2 liters. In the store across the street, it is on special for 99 cents. Things are just like that.
Actually, I don't insult anyone who doesn't insult me first, except for RD who has insulted me enough in the last year that he earns it, that and all his anonymous postings. He is so transparent!
On the post: But, Wait, Didn't The Entertainment Industry Insist ACTA Wouldn't Change US Law?
Re: Defending the indefensible
Any treaty, once ratified, doesn't change law, but it certainly can add to it, create restrictions, or limitations.
I also think that much of this stuff is very, very, very speculative and based on leaks and other misinformation. It's about on the same level as the weekly Tom Cruise is dead rumors that circulate.
On the post: Once Again, Be Careful What You Wish For With Net Neutrality Once The Lobbyists Get Done With It
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think anyone is saying that the protocol in and of itself is illegal, but it is the "micro sized crack baggy" of illegal file sharing. While the very few who actually use the protocol legally might be punished, turning off P2P (or significantly limiting the packets) would go a long way to limiting illegal file sharing. From all reports, the amount of legal P2P traffic is very low.
Open source would need to learn how to better distribute their software without it. No doubt someone would come up with a better way. I am thinking that a registered peering system (ghost to ghost hookup) might work out better.
Every device connected to the internet is a peer
Not really. There are plenty of peers and peering points online, but end user computers are not by design peers. There is nothing in the IP protocol that suggests that end user devices are also traffic peers, because they are not. It is only additional protocols that have been created to overlay the IP protocols that have created this. Most end user network configurations don't provide balanced bandwidth (async rather than sync), often with ratios of 10 to 1 on up/down. Networks often are not configured or designed to support user to user connections, often requiring long routes to get from one computer to the next, even if they are located side by side.
In part, that nature of the networks is another reason P2P isn't very effecient, because it often uses much more network resources to accomplish a goal. My ISP has about 8 to 10 steps to get out of their network, and a P2P connection to a friend on their network would likely require 20 such steps, where as my connection to Techdirt is only about 3 or 4 steps outside of the network.
I would say if ISPs are forced to be 100% packet agnostic that they will have to significantly raise the amount of network connectivity that they buy, and make significant change to their networks, and those expenses would have to be passed on to the end users. Would you like your internet connection cost to double?
On the post: Once Again, Be Careful What You Wish For With Net Neutrality Once The Lobbyists Get Done With It
Re: Re: This will never end..
Do you really think that any third party is going to come in and entirely wire up washington DC to compete? Do you think they could do it in a cost effective way?
On the post: Once Again, Be Careful What You Wish For With Net Neutrality Once The Lobbyists Get Done With It
Re: Re:
The idea of torrents was created to get around the Napster issue, that a central clearing house to connect the sender and receiver of a file was effectively illegal. Torrents attempt to get around this by using a fairly inefficient protocol of distributed and unreliable nodes in an attempt to create legal obfuscation. It has pretty much failed as well, as most torrent sites exist only in countries that are tolerant or because they have yet to be specifically attacked legally.
P2P by it's very nature is a very inefficient way to move data, it is slower than direct connection, requires a ton more overhead, and very often overloads networks by using them in ways there were not created to go. With the current cost of server bandwidth so low (and getting lower), there is little financial benefit to using P2P for distribution of commercial work. What you save in cost you lose in control, which is always an issue.
In the end, no provider should be obliged to be part of illegal activity. While there is a small part of P2P traffic that is legal, it is clear from studies and to the naked eye that much of what is going on is illegal or "infringing". This isn't a question of language, it's a question of reality.
On the post: Once Again, Be Careful What You Wish For With Net Neutrality Once The Lobbyists Get Done With It
How ever will we live?
On the post: Econ 101: Study Shows That If Record Labels Lowered Prices On Music, They Would Sell A Lot More
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ask ALL customers? How? There's a large proportion who would never respond. How would you ask?
Not ALL as in each one individually, but a sample that is larger than only a sampling of digital music buyers.
Digital music is still only a small part of total music sales. It would be like saying you sampled soft drink preferences from the market, when the only people you asked are people walking by holding Freska bottles. The sample is too narrow to get a full and reasonable result.
As for your purchases, have you considered that perhaps you have reached the saturation point in your collection? One of the amazing things about "long tail" stuff is that over time, your personal demand for older material drops off. Now you are only purchasing or looking at mostly newer material. So your declining in purchasing might have more to do with a lack of new material you like, than anything else. If you really wanted something, you would pay the (slightly) higher price for it today.
On the post: Lady Gaga's Use Of Free Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next.
On the post: Obama's Director Of Citizen Participation Patents Displaying News With Financial Info
The patent was filed February 24, 2006, almost 4 years before Obama was elected and likely about the same amount of time before Katie Stanton came on staff. The patent has nothing to do with Obama, it is something that would be mentioned in passing, not as the up front issue - unless you are trying to create an issue where none exists.
The patent isn't hers, it is assigned to Google, and was likely part of her "work product", along with the others listed. I suspect she will receive no benefit from the patent, not will she in any way control it.
The story reads more like another slap at Obama, rather than anything informative.
On the post: Of Course Most Content Shared On BitTorrent Infringes; But That's Meaningless
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are some that will always pay for it, in the same manner that some people will always pay for autographed crap and artificially scarce hoodies.
What about the numerous cinema screenings that pop up every year - did nobody attend them
For a few cult films, that is still possible. But most of the repertory theaters have long since dried up and gone away, replaced by video stores in the past and torrents today. You are pointing to something that is truly a buggy whip business now as a result of torrent distribution.
On the post: Of Course Most Content Shared On BitTorrent Infringes; But That's Meaningless
Re: Re:
Further, torrents are often used to bring content into areas where it has not yet been shown. The UK, example, is about a full season behind on CSI, if I remember correctly. Australia is often out of sync because their seasons are reversed, etc.
Torrents ignore national boundaries, which often means content ends up in a market before it is officially released. This can only have a negative effect on the value that broadcasters will pay for the rights to these shows.
The BBC iplayer is a good example of the GOOD uses of P2P style distribution, as the rights holder is deciding what is out there, not the viewers themselves. The BBC doesn't show up at people's doors and take their cars or children, why should the viewers be able to tell the Beeb what to put online?
On the post: Of Course Most Content Shared On BitTorrent Infringes; But That's Meaningless
Re: Re:
The customers are only pissed off because people have shown them how to steal stuff with impunity, such that they no longer value the products.
Perhaps when you turn 18 and have to move out of mom's house, you will understand.
On the post: Of Course Most Content Shared On BitTorrent Infringes; But That's Meaningless
Re: Apart from...
Next >>