There is some sort of limited distribution deal in place, so the songs are region restricted..... but you can go to the label's site and anyone can buy from there.
So that begs the question, why limit the distribution if the label will just ignore that and distribute to the world? Because if I am the one that has PURCHASED these limited region rights, aren't I getting royally shafted by the label?
I think this article sent the trolls into shock. They are all sitting around trying to think of how to explain this to their children. They have to educate those young IP maximalists early.
"Honey, we can't get you the F.U.C.K. set, because Santa told his Elves that they are not allowed to make it."
If there electronic devices and mobile phones could actually cause a crash if used during take of and landing, then they should be considered a terrorist threat. If terrorist as willing to sneak a bomb on plane in the diaper of an infant, then surely they have devised a plan to call home on a mobile phone during take off while playing their iPods.
Protect the children from terrorists on planes. We need to let the TSA confiscate these deadly devices at the direction of the FAA and then watch how quickly the whole issue gets SOPA'd.
"It doesn't cost anything, except that without the pirate option, you would either buy it, rent it, or do something else. The issue here is that all these people are defending pirates as potential buyers, but then piracy has cost, because it impacts total sales."
This is one of those times you simply have to give the AC what he wants. So for the record, YES YES YES piracy does actually have an impact on sales. To say that it doesn't is pretty silly. That is NOT the point.
Those who would argue that piracy has an impact on sales are arguing the wrong thing. Try this analogy.
You own a fruit stand and every now and then a customer steals (yes steals) an apple from you. In response you decide to put a gate around your fruit stand and frisk everyone that goes in and out of the gate. The customers stealing the apples still manage to get an apple once in a while (though the frequency is reduced), but all the added precautions to prevent stealing, end up greatly reducing the amount of customers. As your revenues drop, you continue to blame all of your problems on the occasional theft of an apple. Eventually you go out of business all because of those apple thieves. What you can't understand is why the other fruit vendor up the road is doing so well. He still has an apple stolen (yes stolen) once in a while, but he doesn't worry about it, in fact, he even gives an apple once in a while to his best customers. As a bonus this guy has even benefitted from getting a ton of new customers from a failed fruit stand, because the owner didn't understand how to deal with shrinkage.
Re: Other than Jewish/Christian Religious Traditions...
But..but... Marriage can ONLY be between ONE man and ONE woman. Anything else will result in the destruction of civilization.
If we allow polygamy or gay marriage, families will suddenly burst into flames and the devil (and the pirates and terrorists and drug dealers and pedophiles) will have won.
I just had to go back and grab a comment from another article today.
"I won't claim that the MPAA doesn't act in its own interest and I won't claim that they don't lobby to help the movie industry. But you're being willfully foolish if you think that the anti-SOPA campaign was truly grassroots. I'm sure that 99% still think that it was about censorship-- a truly nasty spin given that, if anything, it's about enabling the quiet censorship of artists by preventing them from profiting on their hard work.
There was plenty of astroturfing by Big Search, Big Piracy and Big Hardware. They were out in force and in many cases they pretended that the lobbying was all a charity.
This is a sumo match between the billionaires in Silicon Valley and the multimillionaires in Hollywood. It has little to do with censorship and everything to do with whether or not the artists can make a living off of their hard work. Big Search, Big Piracy and Big Hardware want to keep all of the revenues for themselves."
So this guy thinks Big Tech is out to starve artists like Lester?
I think he has it all wrong. Big Content is out to prevent artists from profitting from their work.
I hope the guy that posted that silly comment responds to this.
A huge THANK YOU to the AC who summed up the best way to look at the content industry and any effort to prop up their model.
"You, sir, are just the entertainment."
Congress portrays the needs for laws like SOPA/PIPA as necessary for a number of reasons, but seriously, we are talking about entertainment. Personally I really hadn't looked at any of these issues from that angle, but when you put it in perspective, we are simply talking about entertainment.
In other words, if movies and music require insane levels of investment to produce, then get on Kickstarter and raise funds or quit bitching.
"When technology figures out a way to circumvent law, there should never be a new law to answer that. All laws must remain static and never change. Only technology can change, not laws."
This deserves a huge helping of WTF ?!?!???
Sarcasm aside, of course laws are meant to change. Hell, it would be nice if they did change instead of lagging behind the tech. Your sarcasm implies there are not enough copyright laws to keep up with technology. Have you ever considered that its time to change the laws so that the normal behaviors of customers (enabled by technology) are not criminalized?
Please spare us the rant about how everything will be free and no one will get paid and creation will disappear from the planet. TV didn't kill movies and video didn't kill the radio star.
I've made this same comment in response to a number of TechDirt articles. This is a no brainer. Newspapers and TV stations have a huge amount of content that is no longer in circulation other than in our collective memories. For all the talk about piracy and business models, it just seems natural that they would want to "cash in" on all that content that is just not being watched or read because they don't put it out there to be consumed.
They can sell ads for it like they always have. Maybe not the top tier of revenue they want, but a whole lot of something is better than not generating any revenue on old content and whining about no new revenue streams ( or cannibalizing old ones).
"I'm so tired of people blaming us good U.S. folks. It's so unfair. Woe is me."
Im going to have to agree with this. Why blame the US for this? The blame rests heavily on the shoulders of the UK. The UK is allowing this to happen.
This kid is a law abiding citizen of the UK and the UK is not fighting for the rights of its own citizen. That is hardly the fault of the US. The US simply charged him with a crime under US law and requested extradition. The correct, intelligent, and decent thing for the UK to do is to simply say NO!
Stealing, per the dictionary has two aspects. For physical property, you do actually have to deprive someone of something without their permission. There is nothing in the definition about gaining something.
If I steal your bike and throw it away, I haven't gained, but I've certainly stolen.
The second aspect of stealing is intellectual (ideas) passing off ideas as your own is stealing. I'm sure that someone will argue that copying a song is passing it off as your own, but we know that the intent of the definition is to imply that an idea is your own when its not.
copying is stealing like a dog is a shark. Yes they are both animals and they have some similarities, but we use different words for different things.
So if copying is stealing then stealing is copying. But I thought stealing is ALWAYS illegal and copying can be legal. But they are the same, no?
If only we could actually steal intellectual property. Then most of these idiots would have their brains sucked dry in a matter of weeks and they would finally shut the hell up.
Wow. To call that comment an EPIC FAIL would not truly do it justice. It's more like an Epic Fail drenched in Awesome Sauce.
"The problem with that theory is that reality proves that the primary driving force of piracy is the ease of access to pirated content."
Actually with the rise of services like Spotify, you are finding that there is a drop in the "piracy" of online music. It's not just ease of access, it's also about price. If the price is low enough and the convenience high enough, then yes, the rate of piracy will dip toward zero.
"If pirated content was harder to get or if the risks associated with piracy were increased you would see more people obtaining content from legitimate sources."
OR...
If the content were harder to get at and/or the risks were increased, you would see some people using legitimate sources and consuming much less; and some would simply stop consuming media from pirate sites but still share a lot.
I think your opinion comes from a severe lack of understanding of how the internet works. Few people think about Skype or Yahoo Messenger or MSN messenger or all the other messengers out there, as p2p software, but they are. I can share files with my friends on Facebook as well. Once the content is out there and people are willing to share it, there isn't much that can be done to stop it. That is the nature of human beings, we like things and we share with our friends. From the consumer point of view, the artist has already been paid a few times over by the time the media gets to us. Let the artist make something new or just wait for royalties. We don't care.
On the post: NSA Insists It Doesn't Have 'The Ability' To Spy On American Emails, Texts, Etc.
Hmmmmm
"We’re not authorized to do that, nor do we have the equipment in the United States to collect that kind of information."
Did anyone ask him if the NSA has equipment OUTSIDE of the US that is used to collect that kind of information?
On the post: Why Do The Labels Continue To Insist That 'Your Money Is No Good Here?'
Re:
There is some sort of limited distribution deal in place, so the songs are region restricted..... but you can go to the label's site and anyone can buy from there.
So that begs the question, why limit the distribution if the label will just ignore that and distribute to the world? Because if I am the one that has PURCHASED these limited region rights, aren't I getting royally shafted by the label?
On the post: Free 3D-Printable Kit To Connect Different Toy Construction Sets Released -- But Partially Blocked Due To Patents
Evolution of Santa
"Honey, we can't get you the F.U.C.K. set, because Santa told his Elves that they are not allowed to make it."
On the post: FAA Admits That It's Going To Rethink Whether You Can Use Kindles & Tablets On Takeoff & Landing
Call the bluff and enjoy the Clash of the Titans
Protect the children from terrorists on planes. We need to let the TSA confiscate these deadly devices at the direction of the FAA and then watch how quickly the whole issue gets SOPA'd.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
ok ok ok
This is one of those times you simply have to give the AC what he wants. So for the record, YES YES YES piracy does actually have an impact on sales. To say that it doesn't is pretty silly. That is NOT the point.
Those who would argue that piracy has an impact on sales are arguing the wrong thing. Try this analogy.
You own a fruit stand and every now and then a customer steals (yes steals) an apple from you. In response you decide to put a gate around your fruit stand and frisk everyone that goes in and out of the gate. The customers stealing the apples still manage to get an apple once in a while (though the frequency is reduced), but all the added precautions to prevent stealing, end up greatly reducing the amount of customers. As your revenues drop, you continue to blame all of your problems on the occasional theft of an apple. Eventually you go out of business all because of those apple thieves. What you can't understand is why the other fruit vendor up the road is doing so well. He still has an apple stolen (yes stolen) once in a while, but he doesn't worry about it, in fact, he even gives an apple once in a while to his best customers. As a bonus this guy has even benefitted from getting a ton of new customers from a failed fruit stand, because the owner didn't understand how to deal with shrinkage.
On the post: Journalism Opportunities Aren't Drying Up, They Are Just Changing
Seriously, how did we get to that line of thinking?
On the post: What To Do When Facebook Suggests You Become Friends With Your Husband's Other Wife
Re: Other than Jewish/Christian Religious Traditions...
If we allow polygamy or gay marriage, families will suddenly burst into flames and the devil (and the pirates and terrorists and drug dealers and pedophiles) will have won.
On the post: Lester Chambers, Successful Musician Who Received No Royalties From '67 To '94, Planning To Sue
Juxtaposition
"I won't claim that the MPAA doesn't act in its own interest and I won't claim that they don't lobby to help the movie industry. But you're being willfully foolish if you think that the anti-SOPA campaign was truly grassroots. I'm sure that 99% still think that it was about censorship-- a truly nasty spin given that, if anything, it's about enabling the quiet censorship of artists by preventing them from profiting on their hard work.
There was plenty of astroturfing by Big Search, Big Piracy and Big Hardware. They were out in force and in many cases they pretended that the lobbying was all a charity.
This is a sumo match between the billionaires in Silicon Valley and the multimillionaires in Hollywood. It has little to do with censorship and everything to do with whether or not the artists can make a living off of their hard work. Big Search, Big Piracy and Big Hardware want to keep all of the revenues for themselves."
So this guy thinks Big Tech is out to starve artists like Lester?
I think he has it all wrong. Big Content is out to prevent artists from profitting from their work.
I hope the guy that posted that silly comment responds to this.
On the post: MPAA Exec: Only We Can Make Content That People Want
In a nutshell
"You, sir, are just the entertainment."
Congress portrays the needs for laws like SOPA/PIPA as necessary for a number of reasons, but seriously, we are talking about entertainment. Personally I really hadn't looked at any of these issues from that angle, but when you put it in perspective, we are simply talking about entertainment.
In other words, if movies and music require insane levels of investment to produce, then get on Kickstarter and raise funds or quit bitching.
On the post: Authors Can Sleep Easy Now; Paypal Reverses Its Censorship Decision
Ummmm but.. but.. but..
On the post: Spotify Finally Launches In Germany -- And Immediately Hits Data Protection Problems
smh
On the post: ISPs Will Start Acting As Hollywood's Private Online Security Guards By July
Re: Re: You Win!!!
You win the award for Most Uninformed Comment of the Week!!!
Yay! You can download your award at TPB.
On the post: Review Of Canada's Copyright Bill Concludes, Digital Locks Survive
Re:
This deserves a huge helping of WTF ?!?!???
Sarcasm aside, of course laws are meant to change. Hell, it would be nice if they did change instead of lagging behind the tech. Your sarcasm implies there are not enough copyright laws to keep up with technology. Have you ever considered that its time to change the laws so that the normal behaviors of customers (enabled by technology) are not criminalized?
Please spare us the rant about how everything will be free and no one will get paid and creation will disappear from the planet. TV didn't kill movies and video didn't kill the radio star.
On the post: Old News Can Be Good News For Media Sites
No brainer
They can sell ads for it like they always have. Maybe not the top tier of revenue they want, but a whole lot of something is better than not generating any revenue on old content and whining about no new revenue streams ( or cannibalizing old ones).
On the post: UK Decides Hollywood, US Gov't's Interests More Important Than Own Citizens; Extradites Student For Linking
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Im going to have to agree with this. Why blame the US for this? The blame rests heavily on the shoulders of the UK. The UK is allowing this to happen.
This kid is a law abiding citizen of the UK and the UK is not fighting for the rights of its own citizen. That is hardly the fault of the US. The US simply charged him with a crime under US law and requested extradition. The correct, intelligent, and decent thing for the UK to do is to simply say NO!
Maybe GB is just the newest state in the US.
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
Re: It can be.
If I steal your bike and throw it away, I haven't gained, but I've certainly stolen.
The second aspect of stealing is intellectual (ideas) passing off ideas as your own is stealing. I'm sure that someone will argue that copying a song is passing it off as your own, but we know that the intent of the definition is to imply that an idea is your own when its not.
copying is stealing like a dog is a shark. Yes they are both animals and they have some similarities, but we use different words for different things.
So if copying is stealing then stealing is copying. But I thought stealing is ALWAYS illegal and copying can be legal. But they are the same, no?
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
If only...
On the post: Rather Than Speaking Out Against Domain Seizures, ICANN Provides A 'How To' Manual
Re:
On the post: Why Does An Unpatentable 'Abstract Idea' Become Patentable If You Add 'On The Internet'?
Re:
"The problem with that theory is that reality proves that the primary driving force of piracy is the ease of access to pirated content."
Actually with the rise of services like Spotify, you are finding that there is a drop in the "piracy" of online music. It's not just ease of access, it's also about price. If the price is low enough and the convenience high enough, then yes, the rate of piracy will dip toward zero.
"If pirated content was harder to get or if the risks associated with piracy were increased you would see more people obtaining content from legitimate sources."
OR...
If the content were harder to get at and/or the risks were increased, you would see some people using legitimate sources and consuming much less; and some would simply stop consuming media from pirate sites but still share a lot.
I think your opinion comes from a severe lack of understanding of how the internet works. Few people think about Skype or Yahoo Messenger or MSN messenger or all the other messengers out there, as p2p software, but they are. I can share files with my friends on Facebook as well. Once the content is out there and people are willing to share it, there isn't much that can be done to stop it. That is the nature of human beings, we like things and we share with our friends. From the consumer point of view, the artist has already been paid a few times over by the time the media gets to us. Let the artist make something new or just wait for royalties. We don't care.
On the post: Why Does An Unpatentable 'Abstract Idea' Become Patentable If You Add 'On The Internet'?
Re: Software Patents is Pounding Square Peg into Round Hole
I'm wondering how much of a mess that would create.
Next >>