"Frankly, the 'smoking gun' memo speaks to ABC's diligence in checking to see if something needs to be licensed or not. It's not earth-shattering."
Agreed. I don't see how that's a smoking gun. Now if the memo had said to not license anything and to infringe on as many copyrights as possible, I'd probably think differently. But's the exact opposite of that.
I've said it before, the Fugitive. The Hulk, Kung Fu, The Pretender, and Renegade all had the exact same premise: An innocent person running from the law who stops and helps people every week. Right before he gets caught at the end of the episode, he somehow manages to sneak away to help the next person in the next town.
Heck, even the idea for Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet was "taken" from Matteo Bandello's novella The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet.
Wait a minute. Are you saying that the government handing out exclusive monopoly rights to collect rents somehow hinders newcomers entering the same market?!
These damn kids nowadays expecting everything for free. In the good old days, when we wanted to hear music, we went to a show and paid to hear a band play. Nowadays these young hooligans simply turn on the radio, for free!
In the good old days, if we wanted to watch a Saturday matinee, we'd go to the theater and buy tickets. Nowadays these good for nothing rats simply turn on their TVs for free!
What if you owned a restaurant, but customers stopped coming in because a new, better, and cheaper restaurant opened up across the street?
Do you sue your former customers for not coming in? Do you sue the new restaurant for unfair competition or for interference with business relationships?
Or do you compete by making a better product that people want to pay for?
If you choose the latter, you're a successful businessman.
And I'll just point that people are willing to pay for legal services such as Netflix and iTunes. But only in the crazy world of copyright does the copyright industry want to kill them. (Netflix here and iTunes here.)
To the copyright industry, it's not about competing or giving customers what they want. It's about sitting back and collecting government granted monopoly rents. When the copyright industry sees newcomers collecting some of their god, er, government-given monopoly rents, they go ballistic.
You might think this is about stopping piracy. But it's not. To the copyright industry, it's about destroying any and all competition to collect government granted monopoly rents.
If you honestly think that copyright middlemen (Viacom, Disney, Sony, etc..., not to mention all of the blood-sucking collection societies) will simply disappear one day, you're either a fool or an amazing dreamer.
As I've written about before, the copyright industry has faced technological difficulties in the past. When that happens, it has new laws passed which open up new monopoly rents to sit back and collect.
And even if by some bizarre circumstance today's middlemen disappear, they will be replaced by new middlemen. When governments are happy to give out monopoly rents to collect, the connected and wealthy will line up to take their cuts. (And then they'll fight like hell to get even bigger cuts.)
"A scenario where the only beneficiaries are the gatekeepers, and the consumers and the artists themselves are made to feel like interlopers."
Mike, I love it when you act clueless. Copyright has been about protecting wealthy middlemen to the detriment of consumers and creators for centuries. This is nothing new. I just wish the rest of the world found it has disturbing as we do.
You're right. The copyright industry plays a zero-sum game. It cannot stand the mere thought of someone else making money from their precious content.
Which is exactly why the movie industry is trying to kill netflix. Even though netflix offers a legal alternative to piracy. Given the choice of netflix making money or losing sales on piracy, the movie industry will chose the lost sale.
On the post: People Realizing New Anti-Streaming Criminal Copyright Bill Could Mean Jail Time For Lip Synchers
I'm sure of the opposite. I'm sure she'll say anything to get the law passed.
On the post: Can 'Reality' Be Copyrighted?
Re: I don't see this as a big deal . . .
Agreed. I don't see how that's a smoking gun. Now if the memo had said to not license anything and to infringe on as many copyrights as possible, I'd probably think differently. But's the exact opposite of that.
On the post: Can 'Reality' Be Copyrighted?
Heck, even the idea for Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet was "taken" from Matteo Bandello's novella The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet.
On the post: Entitlement? Spoiled Brats? Or Just Progress?
Re: Re:
Back then there only were three channels.
On the post: French Government Creates Its Own Giant Patent Troll
(God, I feel so dirty writing that.)
On the post: WIPO Commissioned Study On Intellectual Property Acting As A Barrier To Entry
How is that fricken possible?!
On the post: Entitlement? Spoiled Brats? Or Just Progress?
In the good old days, if we wanted to watch a Saturday matinee, we'd go to the theater and buy tickets. Nowadays these good for nothing rats simply turn on their TVs for free!
I fear for our future, I really do.
On the post: NJ Supreme Court Can't Comprehend That Everyone Can Be A Journalist
Another out-of-date business model would bite the dust. Old people just hate when that happens.
On the post: Yes, Multiple People Come Up With The Same Joke; It's Not 'Stealing' And Not Even Copying
What did the milk say to the cereal?
Do you wanna get together for breakfast?
On the post: Would It Really Be So Bad If The Beatles Were In The Public Domain?
Re: They *were* something... not now.
On the post: Would It Really Be So Bad If The Beatles Were In The Public Domain?
Re: Re:
On the post: Would It Really Be So Bad If The Beatles Were In The Public Domain?
On the post: Entertainment Industry Lawyer: The Public Domain Goes Against Free Market Capitalism
On the post: Can You Support An Entire Recording Industry By Shaking Down Music Fans?
Re:
Do you sue your former customers for not coming in? Do you sue the new restaurant for unfair competition or for interference with business relationships?
Or do you compete by making a better product that people want to pay for?
If you choose the former, you're part of the copyright industry which lacks the capacity to compete in an open and free market.
If you choose the latter, you're a successful businessman.
And I'll just point that people are willing to pay for legal services such as Netflix and iTunes. But only in the crazy world of copyright does the copyright industry want to kill them. (Netflix here and iTunes here.)
To the copyright industry, it's not about competing or giving customers what they want. It's about sitting back and collecting government granted monopoly rents. When the copyright industry sees newcomers collecting some of their god, er, government-given monopoly rents, they go ballistic.
You might think this is about stopping piracy. But it's not. To the copyright industry, it's about destroying any and all competition to collect government granted monopoly rents.
On the post: Can You Support An Entire Recording Industry By Shaking Down Music Fans?
Re: Re:
If you honestly think that copyright middlemen (Viacom, Disney, Sony, etc..., not to mention all of the blood-sucking collection societies) will simply disappear one day, you're either a fool or an amazing dreamer.
As I've written about before, the copyright industry has faced technological difficulties in the past. When that happens, it has new laws passed which open up new monopoly rents to sit back and collect.
And even if by some bizarre circumstance today's middlemen disappear, they will be replaced by new middlemen. When governments are happy to give out monopoly rents to collect, the connected and wealthy will line up to take their cuts. (And then they'll fight like hell to get even bigger cuts.)
On the post: Can You Support An Entire Recording Industry By Shaking Down Music Fans?
Mike, I love it when you act clueless. Copyright has been about protecting wealthy middlemen to the detriment of consumers and creators for centuries. This is nothing new. I just wish the rest of the world found it has disturbing as we do.
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
That would be scary, but it's a good thing that copyright is completely compatible with the first amendment.
On the post: Dylan: What's Yours Is Mine, And What's Mine Is Mine, Too
On the post: Russian President Skeptical Of Today's Copyright Laws
Actually, he's skeptical of century old copyright laws being applied to today's technology.
On the post: With A Choice Between $100 Million In Cash & Fantasyland, The Labels Choose Fantasyland
Re:
Which is exactly why the movie industry is trying to kill netflix. Even though netflix offers a legal alternative to piracy. Given the choice of netflix making money or losing sales on piracy, the movie industry will chose the lost sale.
Next >>