The amount of negative effect, what little the videos may have had, is mitigated by the credits assigned to the songs and links to where to get them from licensed vendors.
Each instance or case of alleged infringement is different so while you're correct on past rulings should this one ever hit the courts it's still not a certainty what the court would find. As you say, in your sneering way, one has to take the artistic intention and use into consideration. Whether or not you find it funny is immaterial.
I'm sure Mike will stop being an "arrogant prick" the moment you cease being a complete waste of space. In your case it's well night impossible to stop being an "arrogant prick" when you consider anyone disagreeing with your world view of being one.
At least in posting this you've increased your billable time to Sony. I hope they pay trolls well.
I could be reading it wrong but the graphics in the articles are pointing at money raised not to an ROI.
That said I'd agree that most music and arts projects don't scale as well as some other offerings. The music fundraisers do seem to make their targets though which are well under a million bucks.
That it does provide musicians with an alternative to their own pockets or the recording industry is an overall positive in my view.
Destroy the music business as a whole or the labels in particular which, according to you must make up 100% of the music business.
Turning to "distribution systems" have you noticed a distinct lack of shiny round disk retailers lately? A decline that went into freefall when LEGAL stores like iTunes arrived? It's very hard to blame all of that on "piracy". The market, as in music buyers, don't want CDs anymore. Vinyl, yeah, CDs no. To change the name of a song slightly -- "I Want My MP3!".
In other words, the Web is your distribution system. Some musicians, quite a few, actually, would question the support systems of the big labels these days as well.
Pine away all you want for the fact that the recording industry as we know it is disappearing because of "technological change". And that artists actually have a choice in this day and age that they didn't have even 15 years ago. Get used to it. That self same industry is the author of its demise as many others have been.
The music business existed and thrived fore centuries before the recording industry became a force 100 years ago. And it will continue to both when the recording industry as we know it is given last rites.
"They can... but again, even Amanda Palmer is the product of the record label system, otherwise she is likely to just be another starving musician working an office job and playing weekends in a pub in Boston."
It's possible, though working an office job would indicate that she wouldn't have been starving.
There are a lot of musicians signed to labels I've never heard of and likely never will because the label is just sitting on them "until the right time" and the musicians seem to think that because they've signed on the dotted line they no longer have to gig, play weekends in pubs in some small town somewhere before returning to the "day job". I've known some.
Would I have heard of her? As it happens I had. She's clearly very talented and capable though I'm not fond of the style she plays I know people who are and helped to finance this in their small way.
Music is like any other art form in that you have to work at it, hone your skills and become good at it. Part of those skills is to be able to connect with your audience/fans something which she does well. The home made ad for Kickstarter shows that.
As to her telling her label to stick it where the sun don't shine. Lots of artists would love to do that. Most, for their own reasons don't.
She's selling her music without going into debt before hand to her former label. So she can focus on her music.
Copies, for them that wants them, will sell themselves when the time comes.
But, of course, copyright was intended to enrich culture not build walls around select parts of it, right?
Remind me not to toss out wanton quotes from Monty Python or mention a certain number of words which cannot be uttered on television to try to be funny or to make a point. I'd have to pay someone, somewhere because I did that.
Oh, I see. Infringement, though I still have my creation completely intact and whole to do with how I please, assuming I haven't had to assign my copyright to Rapacious Publishing or We're Gonna Screw You Blind Records, is somehow the same as someone breaking into my house and stealing everything in it.
Or it's the same as being assaulted, kidnapped or raped.
I'm glad I understand that now. And I understand how fair use is the same thing even if it results, in this case, to more sales and more income for me.
"Read about how Charlie Chaplin and the others created United Artists in 1919. It's pretty much what's happening today with Kickstarter and the small video cameras. People with artistic ability have a story to tell and they're looking at the most efficient way to get that story on the screen. It's not surprising that the old studios figured this out long ago."
It's too bad that you didn't carry on with the UA story and point out that after UA became successful and inertia settled back in again with what they'd have called the old studios continued on much as they had before.
I'm actually almost amazed at the clarity and accuracy of your post, bob. Congratulatons! Still, judging the number of people involved in a production by the length of the credits isn't the world's best way of doing thing.
The original "Sleuth" had two actors in front of the camera, a set consisting of an English cottage they'd rented for the purpose and not much else. The credits listed actors who never appeared and were made up by the screenplay and production. Though they rolled by as endlessly as other movie credits do.
It's still one of the best movies I've ever seen and the acting and directing were both incredible.
The attitude you reflect that what Wales proposes can't be done, though Wales himself says he's terrible at prediction, and derogatory term Wikimovies to indicate that it can't be done indicates a closed mindedness that because the studios figured something out a long time ao means that there's no other and, perhaps, more efficent way. The world of the Internet and Web didn't exist when the studios were first setting up shop in Hollywood, breaking patents willy nilly as they did, and setting up an industry that now claims to be attached at the hip to IP.
What's missing here is that the Net and Web change everything. It's possible now to do what couldn't be done even 10 years ago at a reasonable cost with tools that only existed, where they existed at all, in Hollywood.
Oh, and Chaplain and company wanted was to get paid.
Wales is right. We will replace everything with amateur collaborative efforts that will ultimately be edited down by people that Wales approves of.
Touched a nerve has it?
Like it or not the cost of doing high end production in film/video is falling dramatically as it has for still photography. This goes from low end anything to high end animation for whatever kind of project someone might want to take on. OK, there will be a few more "Attack of The Killer Tomatos" released to the world though Hollywood's most expensive mega failures are often as unintentedly funny as that film is. Adding effects is easier and far less expensive than it's ever been and in the right hands is incredibly effective. From your post and others decrying amateur production I have the impression that you have no idea at all what tools are available out there and for how little cost.
Crowdsourcing a movie is far easier than you think. And has been almost endlessly pointed out here professionals within that industry are rarely working full time (as in TV series) but on contract work, casuals (in any other industry) or part time. Despite what you seem to think professionals in camera work, effect, stunts, sets and any other aspect of production are wonderfully helpful to so-called amateurs and should the "indie" provide excitment to them will often pitch in.
Does that mean all the Hollywood studios are going to self-destruct, in spite of their apparent effort to do just that, one or two may actually adapt and survive. Most of them will go down if they don't.
Does this mean the end of the summer blockbuster? Given what we've seen recently for the majority of them I sure hope so. But they will survive. Just fewer of them and maybe we'll get more consitent quailty.
Distribution costs have already gone down to about zero in that most movies are distributed to theatres across the Internet now, as it is, to theatres. As so-called "piracy" has shown it's very efficent.
I doubt Wales is all that interested in getting involved in the editing process though if I was doing said editing I'd boot him or his minions out the the room I do my editing in. That's a creative process just as much or more than anything that came before it.
Too bad the world isn't changing in ways you disapprove of. You can always stand on the seashore and scream at the tide to stop coming in, if you like. You'll not stop the changes.
The last time I read the US Constitution it was chock full of terms in wide spread legal use of the time and of now. These words and phrases did and do have well defined legal meanings.
On the other hand ACTA is written in "coulda, shoulda, woulda" language which could mean anything and even where there's long standing legal precedence it's phrased so that it can mean anything. As ACTA provides for real time monitoring of ISP user's communications based on unproven allegations of infringement just how that doesn't chill speech, the legitimate expectation of privacy of communication (such as it can be said to exist on the Internet) and freedom of action (such as sharing files I have every right to share legally ) is beyond me.
I agree 100%. The user is the biggest hole in any security system.
I was part of a security audit at the firm I am now retired from and my ability to guess the passwords of some users that I was only mildly acquainted with was appalling. From the most lowly clerk to the executive floor. Everything from child's name, partner, dog, cat and other various easy to guess names, their own name spelled backwards, "1234567" and on it goes. And the oldie but goodie, "password".
A lot of these people had also responded to phishing and spam from home but had set "reply to" to their work email. Imagine what happened then!
It's not that users are hostile, most of the time, it's that they're lazy. As are the rest of us. Remembering one password is easier than a few dozen. Writing it down is a way of remembering seems "well, doesn't everyone do it?".
No matter what a lazy or just plain stupid people are you can't design every eventuality into a security system. Bit9's stuff might be helpful though nothing works as well as educating end users. Even then, they'll be lazy.
It's time like this I grab an old quotation that I love:
"Against stupidity the god's themselves contend in vain."
I guess by chicken sacrifices you mean the take away KFC lunch the IT pros you talk about took into the server room with them. I know that some DO read the docs and man pages but, with MS servers and some Linux servers, it's a while lot easier to set up and pray from the GUI.
Which is, of course, idiotic as doing it that way makes the site more vulnerable to attack, not less. But if you hire a low level cert that only teaches how to set up from a GUI I guess you get what you paid for. :-)
One "leader" of Anonymous has been busted and maybe more have left but that doesn't lead to your conclusion that all the intelligent leaders of the group have.
I suppose even a script kiddie can inject malware into a poorly secured site though my own experience with them says the vast majority of what we call script kiddies have difficulty launching their scripts. Take that and add that just about any good security admin is aware of what scripts are in the wild and guard against them.
What Anonymous has done till now says they're not a collection of script kiddies. Anything but.
The Band, remember, were never Top 40 fodder. Sometimes "format free" FM stations played them a fair bit. And they never made advertising fodder except for the opening few bars and chords of Chest Fever.
"Making "as much" money, well, they should be making about the same per unit as they were before, and that's the concept."
Indeed that's the concept but if the "product" moves fewer units with each passing year then the income becomes less and less. Nothing at all to do with piracy, real or imagined, which is the RIAA's problem is that almost all the "costs" of piracy are imagined.
As for managers.
"And we'll tell you the name of the game, boy;
We call it riding the gravy train!"
It's not just the United States that pays far more than the global norm for wireless services. Canada, if anything, pays marginally more. Scandinavia has many of the problems North America does including population density and terrain issues. North American cell companies hold on like grim death to standards well behind those of the rest of the planet that reduce congestion on the cell networks and expand coverage but that would mean investment in the physical plant something that is declining to the near zero point for cell operators in North America if the graphic is near to being correct.
Other than lack of competition, and new entrants to the field are heavily lobbied against for a variety of mostly invalid reasons, there is no other explanation for the difference in fees.
On the post: Sad State Of Copyright: Guy Using Short Clips Of Music In Viral Videos Accused Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
Each instance or case of alleged infringement is different so while you're correct on past rulings should this one ever hit the courts it's still not a certainty what the court would find. As you say, in your sneering way, one has to take the artistic intention and use into consideration. Whether or not you find it funny is immaterial.
I'm sure Mike will stop being an "arrogant prick" the moment you cease being a complete waste of space. In your case it's well night impossible to stop being an "arrogant prick" when you consider anyone disagreeing with your world view of being one.
At least in posting this you've increased your billable time to Sony. I hope they pay trolls well.
On the post: Sad State Of Copyright: Guy Using Short Clips Of Music In Viral Videos Accused Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Infringement and theft
On the post: No Record Label, But Amanda Palmer Raises Over $100k In Just Six Hours On Kickstarter
Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
That said I'd agree that most music and arts projects don't scale as well as some other offerings. The music fundraisers do seem to make their targets though which are well under a million bucks.
That it does provide musicians with an alternative to their own pockets or the recording industry is an overall positive in my view.
On the post: No Record Label, But Amanda Palmer Raises Over $100k In Just Six Hours On Kickstarter
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Turning to "distribution systems" have you noticed a distinct lack of shiny round disk retailers lately? A decline that went into freefall when LEGAL stores like iTunes arrived? It's very hard to blame all of that on "piracy". The market, as in music buyers, don't want CDs anymore. Vinyl, yeah, CDs no. To change the name of a song slightly -- "I Want My MP3!".
In other words, the Web is your distribution system. Some musicians, quite a few, actually, would question the support systems of the big labels these days as well.
Pine away all you want for the fact that the recording industry as we know it is disappearing because of "technological change". And that artists actually have a choice in this day and age that they didn't have even 15 years ago. Get used to it. That self same industry is the author of its demise as many others have been.
The music business existed and thrived fore centuries before the recording industry became a force 100 years ago. And it will continue to both when the recording industry as we know it is given last rites.
On the post: No Record Label, But Amanda Palmer Raises Over $100k In Just Six Hours On Kickstarter
Re: Re: Sell music, not copies
It's possible, though working an office job would indicate that she wouldn't have been starving.
There are a lot of musicians signed to labels I've never heard of and likely never will because the label is just sitting on them "until the right time" and the musicians seem to think that because they've signed on the dotted line they no longer have to gig, play weekends in pubs in some small town somewhere before returning to the "day job". I've known some.
Would I have heard of her? As it happens I had. She's clearly very talented and capable though I'm not fond of the style she plays I know people who are and helped to finance this in their small way.
Music is like any other art form in that you have to work at it, hone your skills and become good at it. Part of those skills is to be able to connect with your audience/fans something which she does well. The home made ad for Kickstarter shows that.
As to her telling her label to stick it where the sun don't shine. Lots of artists would love to do that. Most, for their own reasons don't.
She's selling her music without going into debt before hand to her former label. So she can focus on her music.
Copies, for them that wants them, will sell themselves when the time comes.
And you have a problem with that?
On the post: No Record Label, But Amanda Palmer Raises Over $100k In Just Six Hours On Kickstarter
Re:
On the post: Sad State Of Copyright: Guy Using Short Clips Of Music In Viral Videos Accused Of Infringement
Re:
Remind me not to toss out wanton quotes from Monty Python or mention a certain number of words which cannot be uttered on television to try to be funny or to make a point. I'd have to pay someone, somewhere because I did that.
On the post: Sad State Of Copyright: Guy Using Short Clips Of Music In Viral Videos Accused Of Infringement
Re:
Or it's the same as being assaulted, kidnapped or raped.
I'm glad I understand that now. And I understand how fair use is the same thing even if it results, in this case, to more sales and more income for me.
Bullshit.
One of us here is an idiot and it sure isn't me.
On the post: Jimmy Wales Says Irrelevance, Not Piracy, Will Doom Hollywood
Re: Oh really?
It's too bad that you didn't carry on with the UA story and point out that after UA became successful and inertia settled back in again with what they'd have called the old studios continued on much as they had before.
I'm actually almost amazed at the clarity and accuracy of your post, bob. Congratulatons! Still, judging the number of people involved in a production by the length of the credits isn't the world's best way of doing thing.
The original "Sleuth" had two actors in front of the camera, a set consisting of an English cottage they'd rented for the purpose and not much else. The credits listed actors who never appeared and were made up by the screenplay and production. Though they rolled by as endlessly as other movie credits do.
It's still one of the best movies I've ever seen and the acting and directing were both incredible.
The attitude you reflect that what Wales proposes can't be done, though Wales himself says he's terrible at prediction, and derogatory term Wikimovies to indicate that it can't be done indicates a closed mindedness that because the studios figured something out a long time ao means that there's no other and, perhaps, more efficent way. The world of the Internet and Web didn't exist when the studios were first setting up shop in Hollywood, breaking patents willy nilly as they did, and setting up an industry that now claims to be attached at the hip to IP.
What's missing here is that the Net and Web change everything. It's possible now to do what couldn't be done even 10 years ago at a reasonable cost with tools that only existed, where they existed at all, in Hollywood.
Oh, and Chaplain and company wanted was to get paid.
On the post: Jimmy Wales Says Irrelevance, Not Piracy, Will Doom Hollywood
Re:
Touched a nerve has it?
Like it or not the cost of doing high end production in film/video is falling dramatically as it has for still photography. This goes from low end anything to high end animation for whatever kind of project someone might want to take on. OK, there will be a few more "Attack of The Killer Tomatos" released to the world though Hollywood's most expensive mega failures are often as unintentedly funny as that film is. Adding effects is easier and far less expensive than it's ever been and in the right hands is incredibly effective. From your post and others decrying amateur production I have the impression that you have no idea at all what tools are available out there and for how little cost.
Crowdsourcing a movie is far easier than you think. And has been almost endlessly pointed out here professionals within that industry are rarely working full time (as in TV series) but on contract work, casuals (in any other industry) or part time. Despite what you seem to think professionals in camera work, effect, stunts, sets and any other aspect of production are wonderfully helpful to so-called amateurs and should the "indie" provide excitment to them will often pitch in.
Does that mean all the Hollywood studios are going to self-destruct, in spite of their apparent effort to do just that, one or two may actually adapt and survive. Most of them will go down if they don't.
Does this mean the end of the summer blockbuster? Given what we've seen recently for the majority of them I sure hope so. But they will survive. Just fewer of them and maybe we'll get more consitent quailty.
Distribution costs have already gone down to about zero in that most movies are distributed to theatres across the Internet now, as it is, to theatres. As so-called "piracy" has shown it's very efficent.
I doubt Wales is all that interested in getting involved in the editing process though if I was doing said editing I'd boot him or his minions out the the room I do my editing in. That's a creative process just as much or more than anything that came before it.
Too bad the world isn't changing in ways you disapprove of. You can always stand on the seashore and scream at the tide to stop coming in, if you like. You'll not stop the changes.
Me? I don't want to.
On the post: Calm Down Internet: Google Drive's Terms Are The Standard For Countless Websites, Including Gmail
Re: Re: Re:
Or rage filled flatulence. They're hard to tell apart.
On the post: ACTA 'May Interfere With Fundamental Freedoms' -- EU Data Protection Supervisor
Re:
On the other hand ACTA is written in "coulda, shoulda, woulda" language which could mean anything and even where there's long standing legal precedence it's phrased so that it can mean anything. As ACTA provides for real time monitoring of ISP user's communications based on unproven allegations of infringement just how that doesn't chill speech, the legitimate expectation of privacy of communication (such as it can be said to exist on the Internet) and freedom of action (such as sharing files I have every right to share legally ) is beyond me.
On the post: Breivik, The Press And The Ongoing Myth Of The 'Violent Gamer'
Re: Lets Stop Other Popular WAR Games Also
On the post: As CISPA Hits Congress, Cybersecurity Company Hypes The Fear Of Anonymous
Re: Speaking as a "cybersecurity" professional...
I was part of a security audit at the firm I am now retired from and my ability to guess the passwords of some users that I was only mildly acquainted with was appalling. From the most lowly clerk to the executive floor. Everything from child's name, partner, dog, cat and other various easy to guess names, their own name spelled backwards, "1234567" and on it goes. And the oldie but goodie, "password".
A lot of these people had also responded to phishing and spam from home but had set "reply to" to their work email. Imagine what happened then!
It's not that users are hostile, most of the time, it's that they're lazy. As are the rest of us. Remembering one password is easier than a few dozen. Writing it down is a way of remembering seems "well, doesn't everyone do it?".
No matter what a lazy or just plain stupid people are you can't design every eventuality into a security system. Bit9's stuff might be helpful though nothing works as well as educating end users. Even then, they'll be lazy.
It's time like this I grab an old quotation that I love:
"Against stupidity the god's themselves contend in vain."
On the post: As CISPA Hits Congress, Cybersecurity Company Hypes The Fear Of Anonymous
Re: Re: Re: utter sense of fear lol!
And yes, I prefer that form of chicken sacrifice to having to do it all myself.
Every time I try to do it myself I end up eating wayyyyyyy too many feathers!
On the post: As CISPA Hits Congress, Cybersecurity Company Hypes The Fear Of Anonymous
Re: utter sense of fear lol!
Which is, of course, idiotic as doing it that way makes the site more vulnerable to attack, not less. But if you hire a low level cert that only teaches how to set up from a GUI I guess you get what you paid for. :-)
On the post: As CISPA Hits Congress, Cybersecurity Company Hypes The Fear Of Anonymous
Re:
I suppose even a script kiddie can inject malware into a poorly secured site though my own experience with them says the vast majority of what we call script kiddies have difficulty launching their scripts. Take that and add that just about any good security admin is aware of what scripts are in the wild and guard against them.
What Anonymous has done till now says they're not a collection of script kiddies. Anything but.
Still, nice attempt at fear mongering. NOT.
On the post: The Band's Ex-Manager Accuses Reddit Of Profiting From Piracy In Debate With Co-Founder
Re: Re:
On the post: The Band's Ex-Manager Accuses Reddit Of Profiting From Piracy In Debate With Co-Founder
Re: Re: Re:
Indeed that's the concept but if the "product" moves fewer units with each passing year then the income becomes less and less. Nothing at all to do with piracy, real or imagined, which is the RIAA's problem is that almost all the "costs" of piracy are imagined.
As for managers.
"And we'll tell you the name of the game, boy;
We call it riding the gravy train!"
On the post: Is Corruption Responsible For 80% Of Your Mobile Phone Bill? No, Not Really
Other than lack of competition, and new entrants to the field are heavily lobbied against for a variety of mostly invalid reasons, there is no other explanation for the difference in fees.
Next >>