I don't think that's the obvious question. To me, the obvious question is: Why aren't more artists trying things like this?
Here's an artist who's at least giving people a reason to pay for something that's creative and fun over downloading that isn't suing everybody they can think of and demanding some "right to be paid" that they made up.
The dihydrogen monoxide threat must be stopped! That stuff is everywhere ... it's in all the world's oceans, rivers, lakes ... it's coming out of our taps ... our CHILDREN ARE DRINKING THIS STUFF!!!
I'm not a TechDirt fanboy, I'm a liberty fanboy. Just to point out the subtle difference.
First, please refrain from making my arguments for me. You are doing a poor job of it. I can make my own points, which are much better.
Second, we are discussing a LOCAL government, so you don't have to find anything in the Constitution about Right to Privacy, because that's the contract with the People and the FEDERAL government. Though, you may want to look into Amendment X for Right to Privacy in the federal government ... which states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So, since the Constitution didn't give the federal government the right to spy on its people, it inherently protects the rights of the people FROM that.
Third, I at no point said there is a right to privacy to begin with (though as shown, there is an interpretation to an implied right to privacy in the Bill of Rights in regards to the federal government). In fact as I said the only way to avoid the camera system is to NOT go in public. When one leaves their private property and enters public space, they are not entitled to any right to privacy. I don't see a problem inherent with cameras in public. I see a problem with the government running programs that it simply doesn't need to be doing, wasting taxpayer's stolen money and creating a system for corruption & abuse ... as shown here again with a stalker gaining access to a local government funded camera system, fairly quickly & easily it seems.
Lastly, you do make a correct point: I claim governments ARE inherently different from private entities. I can choose to voluntarily interact with a private entity or not. I do not have such choice with government. It is essentially on all levels different. The government forces interaction with me at the end of a gun. If you want to equate government to a private industry, you are saying that the government is a gang.
The only private industry that operates in the same manner as the government is the mob, extorting protection money and providing substandard services that favor corruption and backroom deals that benefit themselves and their cohorts at the expense of the abused.
Most other private industries operate on a voluntary basis, yet the IRS doesn't appreciate it when I choose not to participate in their supposedly voluntary system and don't pay for services I neither want, need, nor use. But hey, I guess private industries are wanting in on that action these days, too ... with their "right to get paid" coming out of thin air. You want to talk about rights not mentioned in the Constitution!
"A moron in a hurry might consider that Lego is somehow involved"
That's not how the courts & common sense has traditionally defined it. You're talking about a brain-dead idiot in a casket might consider that the Lego corporation is somehow directly involved. Just as that same person would think Smith & Wesson was somehow directly involved in a train robbery their guns were used in or used in a scene in a movie.
A moron in a hurry would guffaw and point at the funny little men dancin' & singin'.
It did wonders for Reese's in the '80s after Spielberg was told he didn't have permission to use M&Ms in E.T.
Reese's Pieces sales skyrocketed. Kinda makes you wonder how red the ass was of the executive for M&Ms after everyone in the company was done kicking it.
I think there's a new fetish brewing. C-hands ... 1 shoulder joint for up & down movement ... painted-on smile ... bends perfectly at the waist for the gang-bang scenes ... looks like the furry-craze for the 21st Century.
One is a private company allowing whoever it wants onto its private networks of members. People have to opt-in to these networks, and can opt-out at any time.
The other is a government entity spying on citizens in public with volunteer watchers. People of this town are charged to be watched, whether they want to be or not. They can only opt-out by never going outside of their home or moving their entire lives to another town that has not enacted such a surveillance system.
But a company of a manufactured product doesn't have the right to control for personal or commercial use what said person does with the manufactured product.
Lego already made their money in this transaction. Someone purchased a Lego set that included Lego men. Lego made their financial transaction in this deal already. Now, someone else used their product, altered it, and made a video. Lego's dealings are done. They may WANT to protect their image because they don't LIKE some parts of the song, but that doesn't mean they have any LEGAL RIGHTS to sue for the stoppage of distribution of the video.
Can Ford stop Pizza Hut from allowing its delivery drivers to drive Ford cars & trucks because they don't want Ford associated with lazy people getting pizza delivered right to their door? Can one of the scale model companies that made a model kit used by George Lucas to build the Death Star sue Lucas because they don't want their Battleships associated with actual planetary destruction? Would Office Space had to have chosen a completely not real looking photocopier because Xerox didn't want to be associated with disgruntled employees?
What you're talking about with controlling brand & image is trademark, and they don't have a very compelling trademark violation. They just don't have the legal rights to do what they're doing. As a company that makes a physical product, how that product gets used, whether or not it gets recorded and used personally or commercially, is just out of their control. They've already sold that product, they've already made their financial transaction, they are done in the process.
A Lego box doesn't have a Terms of Service or Terms of Usage. And even if it did, it wouldn't mean that Lego has the legal rights that they claim on the box.
Because he's not reporting on general news. This is an analysis of the news website. It's not a general, unbiased look at the news, but a look at news topics & how they relate to the ideas & ideals of a new economy.
There are no positives in this story as they relate to the new economy. It's a look at the ramifications an earlier decision is having on a company in the marketplace.
If you're looking for unbiased, up-to-the-minute fresh news, then you've simply come to the wrong place. If you're looking for "insight into news stories about changes in government policy, technology and legal issues that affect companies ability to innovate and grow" ... then tap your caps-lock key once, calm down, and keep reading.
My brain is rewiring itself constantly. As I learn new things, the wiring in my brain changes, with new neural pathways forming, old ones strengthening or distancing themselves, or completely detaching themselves from each other. It's why we're so adaptive as a species. Our brains are not wired from Day-0 for specific tasks, but instead are general purpose devices that form based on bio & environmental feedback through biochemistry and sensory inputs combined with both conscious and subconscious analysis.
Living causes the rewiring of brains. Else, everybody would be the exact same person every moment of every day, never learning, never growing, never changing.
My brain is wired differently now than it was when I started writing this comment.
"It is the reason Techdirt is so funny to read, so many people flailing about yelling "free this" and "free that" and nobody thinking past the ends of their noses as to how it would really work in the long run."
Maybe if you read more than you laughed you would see how off kilter this point is. That's all TechDirt is:
1. So many people flailing about "free this" and "free that" and then explaining how it works
2. People for copyright completely ignoring everything that is being said, and never actually reading the points that are being made in favor of "free" business models
3. People explaining for the 14545th time how it would work
4. Trolls flailing about yelling "free doesn't work" and "deserve to be paid" and nobody thinking past the ends of their noses as to how the old system just doesn't work anymore and only has as long as it has because of backroom deals & government protectionism.
How is "give it away and pray", which is NOT 90% of the business models ... obviously you don't read the site regularly but are going off of what someone else told you, any different from the "charge and pray" model, where you put out a product, put a price tag on it, and pray that people buy your product?
In one regard, if no one has heard your music, no one is going to pay money for it. Why pay $15-20 for music you may or may not like?
In the other regard, people are willing to try free music, may like it, and may give you money after the fact for a job well done. And they would pay the artist back by going to shows, promoting the band to friends & family with the free music, and generally create a brand value that the band can leverage in any number ways to get paid that don't require the music listeners to shell out cash.
If the "charge & pray" method does not guarantee you sales, because if no one buys it, then the artist doesn't make any money off of their music, are they being "stolen" from because of their "right to get paid"?
"So now then, really: What is the business model going forward?"
If any of us had this answer, don't you think we'd be off making millions of dollars, and not commenting on a tech website brainstorming ideas? And what makes you think there's going to be *THE* business model? There's likely to be 1,300 business models that work on different strengths for different people with different goals. Some people want to make a bunch of money, some people want to get heard by a bunch of people ... the goal will dictate the appropriate business model.
Or is that the RIAA's solution? Wait until someone way smarter than them tells them what is going to work. Instead of actually figuring anything out for themselves? Unfortunately, they aren't listening to anyone to hear the messages.
Sue thousands of people, or close up shop & go home? I can see how the recording, marketing, & distribution system is failing so quickly of they see everything in "one of two option" scenarios. Quite frankly, there's hundreds of thousands of options available to them. You've taken the two extremes, and completely discounted the infinite levels in between.
How about not suing people, and not closing up shop? There's a third option right there. Tons of people are still buying CDs, tons of people are buying mp3s, how about focusing on keeping those customers happy instead of worrying about people who aren't paying?
How about abandoning charging for listening to music, and instead monetize other parts of the process? Charge for live music, exclusive pre-sales with incentives to pay for music production, merchandising, commercial licensing? Let people "steal" music, but charge for everything else around it?
And if it were a functional business model, then wouldn't it be functioning? But you're saying it's not functioning, so it's by definition an non-functional business model.
Because the police don't make money off of getting you your stuff back. They're more interested in arresting drug offenders & writing traffic tickets, because they can sell off the inventory they collect stealing from drug dealers. They know where their money comes from, and it ain't from getting a bunch of CDs stolen from your car back. They've found becoming the thieves themselves is far more profitable.
On the post: Moldover Gives People A Reason To Buy His CD By Turning The Case Into An Instrument
Re:
Here's an artist who's at least giving people a reason to pay for something that's creative and fun over downloading that isn't suing everybody they can think of and demanding some "right to be paid" that they made up.
On the post: Latest Techno Moral Panic: Texting Is 'Rewiring Young Brains'
Re: Re: Re:
WONT' SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!
On the post: Convicted Stalker Was Approved By Lancaster To Manage Surveillance Cameras
Re: Re: Re:
First, please refrain from making my arguments for me. You are doing a poor job of it. I can make my own points, which are much better.
Second, we are discussing a LOCAL government, so you don't have to find anything in the Constitution about Right to Privacy, because that's the contract with the People and the FEDERAL government. Though, you may want to look into Amendment X for Right to Privacy in the federal government ... which states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So, since the Constitution didn't give the federal government the right to spy on its people, it inherently protects the rights of the people FROM that.
Third, I at no point said there is a right to privacy to begin with (though as shown, there is an interpretation to an implied right to privacy in the Bill of Rights in regards to the federal government). In fact as I said the only way to avoid the camera system is to NOT go in public. When one leaves their private property and enters public space, they are not entitled to any right to privacy. I don't see a problem inherent with cameras in public. I see a problem with the government running programs that it simply doesn't need to be doing, wasting taxpayer's stolen money and creating a system for corruption & abuse ... as shown here again with a stalker gaining access to a local government funded camera system, fairly quickly & easily it seems.
Lastly, you do make a correct point: I claim governments ARE inherently different from private entities. I can choose to voluntarily interact with a private entity or not. I do not have such choice with government. It is essentially on all levels different. The government forces interaction with me at the end of a gun. If you want to equate government to a private industry, you are saying that the government is a gang.
The only private industry that operates in the same manner as the government is the mob, extorting protection money and providing substandard services that favor corruption and backroom deals that benefit themselves and their cohorts at the expense of the abused.
Most other private industries operate on a voluntary basis, yet the IRS doesn't appreciate it when I choose not to participate in their supposedly voluntary system and don't pay for services I neither want, need, nor use. But hey, I guess private industries are wanting in on that action these days, too ... with their "right to get paid" coming out of thin air. You want to talk about rights not mentioned in the Constitution!
On the post: Why Does Lego Get To Stop Spinal Tap From Using Lego Video?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time was
That's not how the courts & common sense has traditionally defined it. You're talking about a brain-dead idiot in a casket might consider that the Lego corporation is somehow directly involved. Just as that same person would think Smith & Wesson was somehow directly involved in a train robbery their guns were used in or used in a scene in a movie.
A moron in a hurry would guffaw and point at the funny little men dancin' & singin'.
On the post: Why Does Lego Get To Stop Spinal Tap From Using Lego Video?
Re: legos
Reese's Pieces sales skyrocketed. Kinda makes you wonder how red the ass was of the executive for M&Ms after everyone in the company was done kicking it.
On the post: Why Does Lego Get To Stop Spinal Tap From Using Lego Video?
Re:
I think there's a new fetish brewing. C-hands ... 1 shoulder joint for up & down movement ... painted-on smile ... bends perfectly at the waist for the gang-bang scenes ... looks like the furry-craze for the 21st Century.
On the post: Convicted Stalker Was Approved By Lancaster To Manage Surveillance Cameras
Re: Sigh...
-Benjamin Franklin
On the post: Convicted Stalker Was Approved By Lancaster To Manage Surveillance Cameras
Re:
One is a private company allowing whoever it wants onto its private networks of members. People have to opt-in to these networks, and can opt-out at any time.
The other is a government entity spying on citizens in public with volunteer watchers. People of this town are charged to be watched, whether they want to be or not. They can only opt-out by never going outside of their home or moving their entire lives to another town that has not enacted such a surveillance system.
It's apples & oranges.
On the post: Why Does Lego Get To Stop Spinal Tap From Using Lego Video?
Re:
On the post: Why Does Lego Get To Stop Spinal Tap From Using Lego Video?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Time was
Lego already made their money in this transaction. Someone purchased a Lego set that included Lego men. Lego made their financial transaction in this deal already. Now, someone else used their product, altered it, and made a video. Lego's dealings are done. They may WANT to protect their image because they don't LIKE some parts of the song, but that doesn't mean they have any LEGAL RIGHTS to sue for the stoppage of distribution of the video.
Can Ford stop Pizza Hut from allowing its delivery drivers to drive Ford cars & trucks because they don't want Ford associated with lazy people getting pizza delivered right to their door? Can one of the scale model companies that made a model kit used by George Lucas to build the Death Star sue Lucas because they don't want their Battleships associated with actual planetary destruction? Would Office Space had to have chosen a completely not real looking photocopier because Xerox didn't want to be associated with disgruntled employees?
What you're talking about with controlling brand & image is trademark, and they don't have a very compelling trademark violation. They just don't have the legal rights to do what they're doing. As a company that makes a physical product, how that product gets used, whether or not it gets recorded and used personally or commercially, is just out of their control. They've already sold that product, they've already made their financial transaction, they are done in the process.
A Lego box doesn't have a Terms of Service or Terms of Usage. And even if it did, it wouldn't mean that Lego has the legal rights that they claim on the box.
On the post: Sirius XM Passes RIAA Tax On To Consumers
Re: SIRIUSXM
There are no positives in this story as they relate to the new economy. It's a look at the ramifications an earlier decision is having on a company in the marketplace.
If you're looking for unbiased, up-to-the-minute fresh news, then you've simply come to the wrong place. If you're looking for "insight into news stories about changes in government policy, technology and legal issues that affect companies ability to innovate and grow" ... then tap your caps-lock key once, calm down, and keep reading.
On the post: The Web Is More About Free Communication Than Transactions
Re:
It doesn't mean I need to be exposed to it, nor do they have a right to force me to listen. I can walk away, or close my browser.
It's the cornerstone of a free society.
On the post: Latest Techno Moral Panic: Texting Is 'Rewiring Young Brains'
Living causes the rewiring of brains. Else, everybody would be the exact same person every moment of every day, never learning, never growing, never changing.
My brain is wired differently now than it was when I started writing this comment.
On the post: Yes, People Dislike The RIAA Because Of Its Actions, Not Because Everyone Hates Music Business People
Re: Re: Techdirt's Very Existance
Like hell it isn't. "Wayne's World" did a great spoof proving that point.
On the post: Yes, People Dislike The RIAA Because Of Its Actions, Not Because Everyone Hates Music Business People
Re: Re: Yeah, that's about right.
Maybe if you read more than you laughed you would see how off kilter this point is. That's all TechDirt is:
1. So many people flailing about "free this" and "free that" and then explaining how it works
2. People for copyright completely ignoring everything that is being said, and never actually reading the points that are being made in favor of "free" business models
3. People explaining for the 14545th time how it would work
4. Trolls flailing about yelling "free doesn't work" and "deserve to be paid" and nobody thinking past the ends of their noses as to how the old system just doesn't work anymore and only has as long as it has because of backroom deals & government protectionism.
On the post: Yes, People Dislike The RIAA Because Of Its Actions, Not Because Everyone Hates Music Business People
Re: Re: Re:
In one regard, if no one has heard your music, no one is going to pay money for it. Why pay $15-20 for music you may or may not like?
In the other regard, people are willing to try free music, may like it, and may give you money after the fact for a job well done. And they would pay the artist back by going to shows, promoting the band to friends & family with the free music, and generally create a brand value that the band can leverage in any number ways to get paid that don't require the music listeners to shell out cash.
If the "charge & pray" method does not guarantee you sales, because if no one buys it, then the artist doesn't make any money off of their music, are they being "stolen" from because of their "right to get paid"?
"So now then, really: What is the business model going forward?"
If any of us had this answer, don't you think we'd be off making millions of dollars, and not commenting on a tech website brainstorming ideas? And what makes you think there's going to be *THE* business model? There's likely to be 1,300 business models that work on different strengths for different people with different goals. Some people want to make a bunch of money, some people want to get heard by a bunch of people ... the goal will dictate the appropriate business model.
Or is that the RIAA's solution? Wait until someone way smarter than them tells them what is going to work. Instead of actually figuring anything out for themselves? Unfortunately, they aren't listening to anyone to hear the messages.
On the post: Yes, People Dislike The RIAA Because Of Its Actions, Not Because Everyone Hates Music Business People
Re:
Sue thousands of people, or close up shop & go home? I can see how the recording, marketing, & distribution system is failing so quickly of they see everything in "one of two option" scenarios. Quite frankly, there's hundreds of thousands of options available to them. You've taken the two extremes, and completely discounted the infinite levels in between.
How about not suing people, and not closing up shop? There's a third option right there. Tons of people are still buying CDs, tons of people are buying mp3s, how about focusing on keeping those customers happy instead of worrying about people who aren't paying?
How about abandoning charging for listening to music, and instead monetize other parts of the process? Charge for live music, exclusive pre-sales with incentives to pay for music production, merchandising, commercial licensing? Let people "steal" music, but charge for everything else around it?
And if it were a functional business model, then wouldn't it be functioning? But you're saying it's not functioning, so it's by definition an non-functional business model.
On the post: DOJ Doesn't Believe $80,000 Per Song Unconstitutional Or Oppressive
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Newspapers Are Failing (Hint: Failure To Get Users To Pay Is NOT The Reason)
Re: The truth about why they're failing
On the post: Home Burglar Returns To Taunt Couple Via Facebook?
Re: police
Next >>