Actually,I'd like to see these people taken to court. A record label suing a band for encouraging piracy would be the best publicity a pirate could ever hope for.
Your original statement is correct. When there isn't enough money going to particular players in a market for them to be profitable, those players tend to fail. Mergers and bankrupcy do not mean that the whole market is doomed, though. I remember T-Mobile merging with AT&T. That didn't mean the cell phone industry had started its downhill slide, it meant nothing more or less than T-Mobile being acquired. I see restaurants fail all the time, despite that people remain willing to pay for food. Is there something about the Big Six consolidating that I'm unaware of that would be evidence for the failure of music and movies as a whole?
This isn't a band getting pissy about a lack of sales. They aren't getting paid for their sales. The label has failed to meet its contractual obligation to give the band money for sales that actually happened. That is the problem, not advertising. People are willing to pay for the music, but none of their payment is going to the artist. I could keep rephrasing it any number of different ways if this concept is too complicated for you.
Where did they encourage piracy? All I see is a band pointing out that fans can get their music through non-traditional means. That doesn't necessarily mean piracy. Everyone knows no artist would ever want their work to be pirated, so you must have misread it.
Norse mythology more often than not has rape, incest and bestiality at the same time. Clearly the Poetic Edda is subversive and shouldn't be allowed in our pure society.
The "why" is simple. The banks are run by old socially conservative men who have somehow gotten it into their heads that it's bad for their service to be associated with [depictions of] rape and incest. They don't understand why people would object to getting rid of it, because everyone knows rape and incest are bad.
Any company deemed "too big to fail" should also be prohibited from this kind of thing. If the loss of an organization's support would seriously damage any company, then that organization should be held to the standards of the Bill of Rights at least as thoroughly as Congress is supposed to be, or all it'll be good for is stopping a single avenue of tyranny.
What would you gain from being able to make your photo unavailable on the web, beyond the ability to make your photo unavailable on the web? Or am I completely misreading your first point?
The person who pins your work can't give Pinterest the right to sell your work any more than I can sell your house. That it's in the TOS doesn't change that. If Pinterest ever tries to push that they will lose, and rightly so.
How much are you willing to pay to post comments on this blog? It's obviously of value, or you wouldn't be doing it, so clearly it can be monetized.
Not everything people do is something they will or should have to pay to do. Saying that you think a picture is nice is one of those things you shouldn't have to pay for. Nothing you've said has convinced me that it is in any way reasonable for anyone to expect to be paid for that, and I get the feeling that neither of us thinks close enough to the other to convince them that we're right, since you keep using that word "legal" like it means something besides "helps avoid fines". The next bit is just an elaboration on my view, more for if you're curious than anything.
The whole movie is several hours long. You can't just glance at a movie and say "huh, that is a pretty good movie". But clips of a lightsaber fight, the opening of the Imperial March, or a picture of Leia in her bronze bikini are fine. Yes, I define a casual use by the amount of time a user can be expected to be exposed to it. A couple hours can never be just casual, since it requires a certain amount of commitment to sit through. And, for things less immediately recognizable than Star Wars, it's also good to say what the thing's from. I know it doesn't affect the legality, but it does affect how reasonable the action is, a property entirely divorced from the law.
Actually I do occasionally sit around watching an image slideshow. The good people of Deviantart can be surprisingly talented at times, and sometimes I'll pay for something from one of them. But not the image data itself, no picture is that good. Do you really expect everyone on the Internet to pay you just to embed one of your pictures on their site? Even casual bloggers, people who just want to say "look how pretty this picture is"? Obviously you should be paid for commercial uses, but not every use is commercial.
What a well-thought-out rebuttal. "They're saying similar things to this other group that failed, so clearly this is just a passing thing. Also, marijuana."
What you fail to take into account is that this isn't just some reactionary cultural movement. The views expressed in that article were born solely from the capabilities of modern technology. Never being unable to find what you're looking for, be it a person, a fact, or a piece of art, is not a trivial change. For the Web Kids to go back to the way things were before would require nothing short of the complete destruction of the Internet.
I could be wrong, but you'll need to provide more concrete ideas than just "it's definitely going to fail" to be taken seriously. Explain why, in a world of smartphones, the Internet would become less entwined with people's normal lives. Explain why, when we can find communities of people who share our interests, we'd start to focus more on people who just happen to be physically near to us. Explain why, while the likes of Google, Wikipedia and Wolfram Alpha exist, being smart should ever be defined as knowing the dates of events. Explain why anything in that manifesto should ever stop being true, beyond that it shares some words and concepts with a movement that came before.
On the post: Sony & NBC Interfere With Fan-Funded Web Series, Accomplish Nothing
Re: Even Better
On the post: Band Tells Fans To Boycott Its Albums, Saying Its Label Doesn't Pay
Re:
On the post: Band Tells Fans To Boycott Its Albums, Saying Its Label Doesn't Pay
Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA's Cary Sherman: We Really Just Want To Give Consumers What We, Er, They Want
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Band Tells Fans To Boycott Its Albums, Saying Its Label Doesn't Pay
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Paypal Pressured To Play Morality Cop And Forces Smashwords To Censor Authors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This story seems to be missing something
On the post: Band Tells Fans To Boycott Its Albums, Saying Its Label Doesn't Pay
Re: read the freaking contract - and stop whinning band..
On the post: Paypal Pressured To Play Morality Cop And Forces Smashwords To Censor Authors
Re: Re: Re: This story seems to be missing something
On the post: RIAA's Cary Sherman: We Really Just Want To Give Consumers What We, Er, They Want
On the post: Band Tells Fans To Boycott Its Albums, Saying Its Label Doesn't Pay
Re:
On the post: Band Tells Fans To Boycott Its Albums, Saying Its Label Doesn't Pay
Re:
On the post: Paypal Pressured To Play Morality Cop And Forces Smashwords To Censor Authors
Re: Re:
On the post: Paypal Pressured To Play Morality Cop And Forces Smashwords To Censor Authors
Re: This story seems to be missing something
On the post: Paypal Pressured To Play Morality Cop And Forces Smashwords To Censor Authors
On the post: In All This Talk Of Pinterest And Copyright, The Fact That It's Driving Massive Traffic Seems Important
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The person who pins your work can't give Pinterest the right to sell your work any more than I can sell your house. That it's in the TOS doesn't change that. If Pinterest ever tries to push that they will lose, and rightly so.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
On the post: In All This Talk Of Pinterest And Copyright, The Fact That It's Driving Massive Traffic Seems Important
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again
Not everything people do is something they will or should have to pay to do. Saying that you think a picture is nice is one of those things you shouldn't have to pay for. Nothing you've said has convinced me that it is in any way reasonable for anyone to expect to be paid for that, and I get the feeling that neither of us thinks close enough to the other to convince them that we're right, since you keep using that word "legal" like it means something besides "helps avoid fines". The next bit is just an elaboration on my view, more for if you're curious than anything.
The whole movie is several hours long. You can't just glance at a movie and say "huh, that is a pretty good movie". But clips of a lightsaber fight, the opening of the Imperial March, or a picture of Leia in her bronze bikini are fine. Yes, I define a casual use by the amount of time a user can be expected to be exposed to it. A couple hours can never be just casual, since it requires a certain amount of commitment to sit through. And, for things less immediately recognizable than Star Wars, it's also good to say what the thing's from. I know it doesn't affect the legality, but it does affect how reasonable the action is, a property entirely divorced from the law.
On the post: In All This Talk Of Pinterest And Copyright, The Fact That It's Driving Massive Traffic Seems Important
Re: Re: Re: Again
On the post: Josef Anvil's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
What you fail to take into account is that this isn't just some reactionary cultural movement. The views expressed in that article were born solely from the capabilities of modern technology. Never being unable to find what you're looking for, be it a person, a fact, or a piece of art, is not a trivial change. For the Web Kids to go back to the way things were before would require nothing short of the complete destruction of the Internet.
I could be wrong, but you'll need to provide more concrete ideas than just "it's definitely going to fail" to be taken seriously. Explain why, in a world of smartphones, the Internet would become less entwined with people's normal lives. Explain why, when we can find communities of people who share our interests, we'd start to focus more on people who just happen to be physically near to us. Explain why, while the likes of Google, Wikipedia and Wolfram Alpha exist, being smart should ever be defined as knowing the dates of events. Explain why anything in that manifesto should ever stop being true, beyond that it shares some words and concepts with a movement that came before.
Next >>