"Sadly, the social costs apparently are nowhere near enough to stop this sort of thing, and if anything, appears to egg these people on to say more and more outrageous things. At some point, the social network system just can't handle it, and the law has to take over."
Seriously?????
Are you fucking kidding me???? Instead of attacking Marcus, if you really mean what you said then you should check out kkk.com. The largest TERRORIST organization in the US is allowed to exist "peacefully" in the real world and online. Shouldn't the law be doing something?
But..but..but.. Freedom of speech
But...but.. but.. The fuckin' Patriot Act. BAM! Stop the terrorists.
I have to admit that the Telcos and the Cable companies are getting creative in how they lie to us.
They used to just stick with "network congestion" as the reason to impose data caps. Then I guess someone realized that they keep saying there's too much traffic as they are trying to roll out more traffic (video), which sets up the situation of : If there is too much traffic already then why are you adding much much more, since the networks can't handle what is already there ???
Ummmm yeah... ummm .. Our private network, that's it. Our private network can handle all the traffic that you pay a lot for. Why don't we just use our private network to eliminate your data caps since you are our customer? Ummmm... hmmm... we'll get back to you on that.
Someone had a big bowl of Bitch Flakes in the morning.
I'm personally sick of this "They invest or pay for the content" argument. Yes gatekeepers pay for the content because the artist can't afford to do it. YES YES YES. But those investors want to reap most of the profit from content that they themselves cannot produce, which makes them the leeches.
Gatekeepers are not in the business of "helping" artists, they are in the business of "pimping" artists.
Better to have to work with a delivery boy than a pimp.
I'm really not sure how any of this is surprising. If the ASCAP is only paying the top 200 touring artists and Live symphonic and recital concerts, that means that they are collecting A LOT of money from all the other tours and bars and coffee shops.
That means that the ASCAP management is rolling in cash for which they did absolutely nothing to earn. So let's think about this for a minute. The top 200 artists are only looking for the compensation due to them, they are not looking for the other money. The ASCAP "says" they pay the money from indie tours to the biggest artist, but with the recording industry's track record, I sincerely doubt that money is going to the top 200 touring artists.
More likely than not, all of that "extra" money is going into ASCAP management bank accounts. If you had a "free money machine", would you want anyone messing with it?????
Why doesn't the RIAA just buy Spotify while it's young and control the platform?
The only reason that comes to mind is that they know that if they have control then they will jack up the prices so high that it will fold in a matter of days. Which should work for them since they can then say that pirating music killed their effort to embrace technology.
"If that's the case, maybe Spotify should just share their revenues with the hard working artists who've actually put in the time it takes to be a rock and roll star."
Why should Spotify share their revenues with the artists? The RIAA and the Major Labels don't.
Reference: Kenny Rogers, Eminem, Chuck D., and the thousands of other artists that have be ruthlessly stripped of their copyrights and earnings.
"No, but it increases the amount of content you enjoy for the same price."
So what?
I can do that without pirating a damn thing. But first let's address your silly counter. By your reasoning, cooking a steak at home is pirating from resturants and sleeping over at a friend's house is pirating from the hotel industry, and a free upgrade to first class when the flight is nearly empty ( oh no, that NEVER happens ) is somehow pirating from the airline industry.
Ok not pirating options.... listen to music on YouTube, watch TV for free on Hulu or on the homesite of the content, go to a friend's house to watch a movie or "the game". Lots more content for less money.
The point you are missing is that this is JUST ENTERTAINMENT. Money that doesn't go into entertainment or any other industry doesn't disappear from the economy, it just goes elsewhere. Many of us see paying for broadband and devices as the "cost" of the content, just like buying a TV is the "cost" of watching the programming.
"Do you think if you were caught speeding, you could use the excuse "I was speeding because I am capable of driving faster than the law permits" or 'I speed because I CAN !'."
Yes speeding is a crime, however there are often days when the entire flow of traffic is moving along at well over the speed limit. If one of us gets caught speeding and ticketed, then we pay a small fine. If speeding tickets were $15,000 on average we would see a change in the law.
Hmmmm. I like where you are going with this. Copyright enforcement should have a small group of enforcers (not entire ISPs) and the fine should be reduced to about $10 per infraction, for the small fraction of people that actually get caught.
"They are a generation who feels incredibly entitled, and are more than willing to take it for free if you don't meet their often unreasonable demands."
What is wrong with that? Meet the demands of the consumer so they pay or they will take it without paying. That is pretty much how economics works with infinite resources. Buy a clue, the customer is still willing to PAY if you meet their demands. So it would actually be intelligent to meet their demands rather than whining about the customer getting the content for free.
This generation is no different than previous generations, they just have MUCH BETTER tools. We recorded music from the radio onto cassettes and we did it with CDs, but we were limited by radio play. Now kids can file share or just go to YouTube or an internet radio station or Spotify and record what they want when they want.
Once more for those in the cheap seats that can't hear....
The behaviors are NOT NEW, the technology has evolved and ENABLES all the same behaviors on a vastly larger scale. Deal with it.
The starving artists and corporations need to be paid for every eye and ear on their content. NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
This can't be happening. How will Chris Dodd support his lifestyle? Cary Sherman will have to fire some of his servants, millions of jobs will be lost.
Seriously? It costs more to sell a home than to purchase a new car because there is a ton of equity to be skimmed by those leeches. Points and fees abound because commissions need to be paid to several hands. No there is no reason for the agent or the lawyer (in most cases), but people are just used to doing business that way.
As the flow of information increases there will be less leeching.... and MILLIONS of jobs will be lost and BILLIONS will disappear from the economy. Gawd I love that song.
Sure you can have my Facebook and Twitter passwords just to make sure I have the right moral character. And you can have my bank details to see that Im fiscally responsible. In fact, I brought in my laptop so you can look through my browsing history then copy the hard drive. And you can borrow my kids to clean your house and my wife can cook dinner for you twice a week.
In general the cable companies do not have to worry about underpricing or adding value to their service. They generally swap out territories with other cable companies in their footprint, which is why you will see very little overlap between Comcast and TimeWarner and Cox Communications.
Often there is only one choice for cable in a particular region or at best one big company and 2 or 3 smaller options at best. So no there is no real competition, with the exception that the Telcos have been pushing real hard for the past few years to get into the TV space and have succeeded to some degree, but they often bundle their service with their other products and make the mental transaction too high for the average consumer to consider switching to their service.
The big issue is that the average consumer still views TV, Phone, Mobile, and Broadband as different services. It hasn't quite filtered down yet that COMMUNICATIONS is now pretty much unified under broadband. We're slowly getting there.
Can we just dispense with the "representative" government argument already. Yes we know that representative government was the best option, given the limitations of previous communication mediums, but we are in a new era of communications.
There are platforms whereby the voices of the masses can be heard and even addressed if needs be. That is not to say that we should devolve into anarchy or even mob rule, but when it comes to new tech changing the way we live, it's really past the time for that to be taken into account.
If nothing else there is no longer a reason for a complete lack of transparency in government. Oh wait, I forgot.... The TERRORISTS are watching.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
Seriously?????
Are you fucking kidding me???? Instead of attacking Marcus, if you really mean what you said then you should check out kkk.com. The largest TERRORIST organization in the US is allowed to exist "peacefully" in the real world and online. Shouldn't the law be doing something?
But..but..but.. Freedom of speech
But...but.. but.. The fuckin' Patriot Act. BAM! Stop the terrorists.
On the post: Universal Music Claims Piracy Justifies Monopoly, Wants The Power To Control Digital Music Services
YAWN
It's kind of like reporting that the Humans want to breathe air.
On the post: Boston Pays $170,000 To The Guy Police Arrested For Filming Them
LOL
On the post: Is Comcast Thumbing Its Nose At FCC's Open Internet Rules By Exempting Xbox VOD From Data Cap?
Well they are getting creative
They used to just stick with "network congestion" as the reason to impose data caps. Then I guess someone realized that they keep saying there's too much traffic as they are trying to roll out more traffic (video), which sets up the situation of : If there is too much traffic already then why are you adding much much more, since the networks can't handle what is already there ???
Ummmm yeah... ummm .. Our private network, that's it. Our private network can handle all the traffic that you pay a lot for. Why don't we just use our private network to eliminate your data caps since you are our customer? Ummmm... hmmm... we'll get back to you on that.
On the post: Harry Potter And The Missing Middlemen: Where The Pottermore Store Goes Wrong
Re:
I'm personally sick of this "They invest or pay for the content" argument. Yes gatekeepers pay for the content because the artist can't afford to do it. YES YES YES. But those investors want to reap most of the profit from content that they themselves cannot produce, which makes them the leeches.
Gatekeepers are not in the business of "helping" artists, they are in the business of "pimping" artists.
Better to have to work with a delivery boy than a pimp.
On the post: How ASCAP Takes Money From Successful Indie Artists And Gives It To Giant Rock Stars
Why is this surprising????
That means that the ASCAP management is rolling in cash for which they did absolutely nothing to earn. So let's think about this for a minute. The top 200 artists are only looking for the compensation due to them, they are not looking for the other money. The ASCAP "says" they pay the money from indie tours to the biggest artist, but with the recording industry's track record, I sincerely doubt that money is going to the top 200 touring artists.
More likely than not, all of that "extra" money is going into ASCAP management bank accounts. If you had a "free money machine", would you want anyone messing with it?????
On the post: How Monopolies Strangle Innovation: Record Label Demands Making Investors Nervous About Spotify
ok maybe this is just too stupid and simplistic
The only reason that comes to mind is that they know that if they have control then they will jack up the prices so high that it will fold in a matter of days. Which should work for them since they can then say that pirating music killed their effort to embrace technology.
On the post: How Monopolies Strangle Innovation: Record Label Demands Making Investors Nervous About Spotify
Re: Monopoly? Nah
Why should Spotify share their revenues with the artists? The RIAA and the Major Labels don't.
Reference: Kenny Rogers, Eminem, Chuck D., and the thousands of other artists that have be ruthlessly stripped of their copyrights and earnings.
On the post: We Don't Want Everything For Free. We Just Want Everything
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what?
I can do that without pirating a damn thing. But first let's address your silly counter. By your reasoning, cooking a steak at home is pirating from resturants and sleeping over at a friend's house is pirating from the hotel industry, and a free upgrade to first class when the flight is nearly empty ( oh no, that NEVER happens ) is somehow pirating from the airline industry.
Ok not pirating options.... listen to music on YouTube, watch TV for free on Hulu or on the homesite of the content, go to a friend's house to watch a movie or "the game". Lots more content for less money.
The point you are missing is that this is JUST ENTERTAINMENT. Money that doesn't go into entertainment or any other industry doesn't disappear from the economy, it just goes elsewhere. Many of us see paying for broadband and devices as the "cost" of the content, just like buying a TV is the "cost" of watching the programming.
On the post: We Don't Want Everything For Free. We Just Want Everything
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes speeding is a crime, however there are often days when the entire flow of traffic is moving along at well over the speed limit. If one of us gets caught speeding and ticketed, then we pay a small fine. If speeding tickets were $15,000 on average we would see a change in the law.
Hmmmm. I like where you are going with this. Copyright enforcement should have a small group of enforcers (not entire ISPs) and the fine should be reduced to about $10 per infraction, for the small fraction of people that actually get caught.
On the post: We Don't Want Everything For Free. We Just Want Everything
Re: Re: Re:
What is wrong with that? Meet the demands of the consumer so they pay or they will take it without paying. That is pretty much how economics works with infinite resources. Buy a clue, the customer is still willing to PAY if you meet their demands. So it would actually be intelligent to meet their demands rather than whining about the customer getting the content for free.
This generation is no different than previous generations, they just have MUCH BETTER tools. We recorded music from the radio onto cassettes and we did it with CDs, but we were limited by radio play. Now kids can file share or just go to YouTube or an internet radio station or Spotify and record what they want when they want.
Once more for those in the cheap seats that can't hear....
The behaviors are NOT NEW, the technology has evolved and ENABLES all the same behaviors on a vastly larger scale. Deal with it.
On the post: Should There Be A Right To Copyright Exceptions?
Re: But..but..but... what about the children?
On the post: Should There Be A Right To Copyright Exceptions?
But..but..but... what about the children?
This can't be happening. How will Chris Dodd support his lifestyle? Cary Sherman will have to fire some of his servants, millions of jobs will be lost.
On the post: Fox TV Finally Realizes The Internet Is Global: Launches Show Around The Globe Simultaneously
LOL
On the post: Canadian Real Estate Agents: Without Us, Poor Homeowners Would Be Getting Attacked And Killed
Re: just sell the frakin house....
As the flow of information increases there will be less leeching.... and MILLIONS of jobs will be lost and BILLIONS will disappear from the economy. Gawd I love that song.
On the post: Should We Outlaw Employers From Asking For Social Networking Logins?
Boy those interviews are getting tougher
Did I get the job?
On the post: File Sharing Drones Proof Of Concept Already Built
Me too
On the post: Boxee Ramps Up Its Fight To Stop The FCC From Letting Cable Companies Effectively Break Its Device
Re:
Often there is only one choice for cable in a particular region or at best one big company and 2 or 3 smaller options at best. So no there is no real competition, with the exception that the Telcos have been pushing real hard for the past few years to get into the TV space and have succeeded to some degree, but they often bundle their service with their other products and make the mental transaction too high for the average consumer to consider switching to their service.
The big issue is that the average consumer still views TV, Phone, Mobile, and Broadband as different services. It hasn't quite filtered down yet that COMMUNICATIONS is now pretty much unified under broadband. We're slowly getting there.
On the post: Australian Gov't: Not In The Public Interest For The Public To Be Interested In Secret Anti-Piracy Negotiations
Getting a little tired of this argument
There are platforms whereby the voices of the masses can be heard and even addressed if needs be. That is not to say that we should devolve into anarchy or even mob rule, but when it comes to new tech changing the way we live, it's really past the time for that to be taken into account.
If nothing else there is no longer a reason for a complete lack of transparency in government. Oh wait, I forgot.... The TERRORISTS are watching.
On the post: Scammers Mimic Copyright Troll Shakedowns In Targeting Megaupload Users
New old news
Next >>