Mike ran two different "surveys" from the UK which came up with vastly different numbers. The Canadian numbers also vary greatly depending on the questions asked. There are a couple of things in play, such that file traders are often not the account holders (but their underage children), or that people just don't want to admit they trade files. So it's hard to tell.
When it comes to numbers, Mike has been pretty good about not working the Swedish numbers that showed after TPB issues and IPRED came along, suddenly there was a significant uptick in online music purchases in that country. That is potentially the smoking gun that would show that when the public no longer feels they can file share with impunity that they will change their habits.
Still waiting for a large Techdirt investigation into this.
19 January 2010: This story has been revised after Dr Sell made clear to the BBC that his research had set out to test the link between temperament and attractiveness, rather than hair colour, for which he said the link was weaker.
It would appear that many in the media have been mislead, I wonder what the source is.
Movies are not new, and yet that didn't stop Avatar from being a smashing success.
Eric, the issue most of us naysayers on Techdirt have is that Mike tries to make out like something incredibly new is going on, when in fact it is as best an evolution (based on technology) of what has gone on for all of mankind's time on the planet. Movies are just the visual embodiment of the caveman's stories around the fire. Your ads are a kewl use of technology, but effectively are just a spin on music videos adjusted to suit a new technology. Hats off to you for doing it, but it isn't some new paradigm, just the old ways brought up to today's technology.
Paul, let's start with the Wikipedia link. It's a link to an opinion page, not a fact page. It's someone basically expressing an opinion about a certain type of "slippery slope" argument, and not the one I am making.
As for the rest of your post, let's poke some thing:
and yet, as we often point out here, the actions they're taking to "protect" those rights are causing them large costs and a lot of lost business. The point is that everyone who posts here, with very few exceptions, are the customers (or potential customers) of companies like EMI. You consistently trash the ideas presented here, but all we're really saying is "these actions make me not want to buy music, here's a suggestion of how to make me want to buy".
This starts back down the road of entitlement, where end consumers have been taught that they have all sorts of rights over IP that they just don't have. Would it have hurt Vimeo to get the rights first? Why should they have a business model that ignores the rights of others?
Fair use in this case is very unlikely, the video is long, the content is fully used, and it is clearly being used with commercial purpose by Vimeo. If you permit this sort of use, why would the IP holder be allowed to stop the next commercial use?
Vimeo may feel somehow entitled to thumb their noses at copyright law, and the end consumers may feel entitled to get something for nothing, but the buck has to stop somewhere.
The fans like the video and are encouraged to buy more music. The artist responsible for creating the original music is happy with it, stating that it reignited his love for a song that he had long tired of. Everybody wins, or they would if the middlemen weren't so utterly stuck in a previous era of marketing
There is no indication that the fans are buying any more music (they are likely to download it for free from a torrent), and in the end nobody wins. The rights holders who paid the Harvey Danger guys a sizable amount of money up front don't get paid, the artist / writers don't get paid, and pretty much the only people happy are the "fans" and Vimeo, who each get to profit from a free pass. Your version of "everyone" isn't very inclusive, is it? I have a feeling that the "everyone" you point to is the group you are in, but which doesn't include everyone.
I personally used to not care about labels until the RIAA started their overreaching "protection" attempts. Now, it's over 5 years since I've bought a major label album - and, no, I don't "pirate" them either
So wouldn't it be better if Vimeo only lipdubbed those artists that want it, and that Vimeo gets the rights to? Oh, wait, that would mean using music that few people know, few people would want to sing along with, and likely would not help promote Vimeo. I sort of see where this goes.
Perhaps a direct link to the original Times article might be in order. I have a feeling that there may be more to this story (once again) than the angry claims coming from one side of the discussion.
Richard, the point I was trying to make is that there is no direct "today" correlation between reduced file sharing and sales, it is something that happens over time. The concept is changing the public perception of right and wrong on the issue (some call it the entitlement mentality).
At best they will get sullen acceptance and maybe a short term sales increase before the sharing moves to more private modes of operation (encryption, sneakernet etc).
if it moved to sneakernet,I don't think they would be concerned. It is incredibly hard with a hand to hand passing of information to create the same harm as high speed, world wide illegal file sharing. Sneakernet also requires more time and effort than most people are willing to put in, and thus, is less of an issue.
Moving to a more encrypted system has the same effect, cutting off those people who are marginal on the idea anyway, making it harder for the casual user to share, and as a result, cutting down file sharing. Few if any would claim that 100% of piracy can be stopped, I think the goals are more a case of shifting what the average consumer does on a given day. Shifting even 20 or 30% of the file sharers back to being paying consumers might actually create a tipping point on the whole idea.
I like free stuff. I don't download *unauthorised* free stuff
Good to see you understand the difference and don't fall into Mike's trap. He knows that the vast majority of P2P and torrents are trading illegal content, and doesn't care. He's too busy trying to paint the content producers as fools to really care that what he really supports is widespread piracy.
If this was only about legal free stuff, there wouldn't be much of a discussion.
The problem is that a whole generation is growing up thinking they are entitled to take anything they want for free, without any fear of repercussions. Try to take even a little bit of it away, and they turn into 4chan anonymous mobs and trying to take down anyone who suggests otherwise. It's absolutely stunning to see the level of entitlement these people have.
The effects aren't entirely felt yet, but in the long run, content production will suffer. Everyone enjoys the content, but fewer and fewer people are truly willing to pay. It's short term gain, long term fail.
Prohibition? Wow, that is a stretch and a half. We aren't talking about anywhere near the same thing. Is there some discussion about stopping all production, sale, and distribution of movies and music I wasn't aware of?
There are plenty of laws that are against come people's wishes, from speed limits to drug laws, from shoplifting to pedophilia. Each of those groups has people who think that they do shouldn't be against the law, and yet in each case it is against the law.
Yes, people speed, and people use drugs, and so on... but in the end, they do it knowing they risk fines, prison, or even significant risks to their health. Some people you cannot change, but most people tend to follow the law without reason.
So when it comes to twisted logic, I think your prohibition argument is pretty much right up there.
Perhaps Apple will take this moment to change the name instead, so they can get away from the feminine hygiene jokes that are already circulating. The Ipad isn't a very strong name.
It is a pretty dumb idea. I could call anything a "search engine" and suddenly could ignore all copyright laws. That just doesn't seem right.
Clearly, this would play nicely for torrent sites, as their "just a search engine" refrain would play nice in the courts. Perhaps Lord Lucas is secretly running TPB now?
he highlights the high costs of implementing such proposals -- without any evidence that they will actually get people to buy more music
Mike, this is where your logic (and Mr Geist's as well) gets twisted. You are looking for an A to B relationship that simply may not exist. Not every assertion of a right automatically leads to some financial benefit.
Three strikes laws and other actions against illegal file sharing is to change the public mentality and perception of how you get music. They aren't looking to suddenly see sales go whipping up as a result of a a violation complaint, they are looking to change the public's idea of right and wrong on the subject. Any change in sales is something that comes over time, not something that suddenly appears moments later.
No matter the amount of furious bootstrapping that you do (linking to a story on your own site which points to an opinion piece you wrote for a newspaper), there is no proof for or against this sort of action. If anything, the short term shift in the Swedish market suggests that changes in public perception does in fact lead to more sales, but that is something you don't seem to want to look more closely at.
So in the end, we are back to pile of opinion on opinion on opinion pieces with little real science or real numbers to back it up. Congrats!
Let's say the record labels (or the rights holders, it isn't just labels, no matter how much you want to blame them) allow this. Then next week, someone makes another video, uses the music again, and sells advertising with it. Then the week after, someone uses the music for their non-profit organization video. Then a week later, someone uses it to sell toothpaste. Where in there should they suddenly react?
You (and Mike) may not like where the line is being drawn, but at the end, there has to be a line, otherwise you are in the give a little, lose a little business until you have no more rights left. It's the old legal slippery slope.
In the end, Mike knows the rights holders are well within their rights here, that Vimeo really doesn't have much to stand on, but we are suppose to be swayed by the "factoids" that the videos are somehow fun and that someone who appeared on the original song thinks they are fun too. I have to laugh, only because people here get upset at me if I don't have anything other than an emotional argument about something, yet this one is entirely on emotion.
Mike, I think you keep confusing the difference between a nice idea (lipdubs) and right issues (getting permission to use the music in the first place).
Are the videos "happy"? Yes. Do they have rights to the music? No.
You attempt to cloud the rights issue by bringing in things that are just not relevant to the rights situation. Does it matter if the singer is happy or sad? Would it suddenly be terrible is the singer was sad, or would you just tar and feather him like Bono?
No matter how much emotion you try to inject, the story remains the same, Vimeo made and encouraged people to make videos with materials they don't have rights to, and then profited from them (or at least attempted to profit). No happy or sad, just the facts.
What's to counter example? Mike is making a huge logical jump that isn't supported in the slightest, how can you counter that?
I am not saying "my way is right", only that his logic is entirely flawed. There is no "right" way to explain his logic, because there is no connection between the points, except perhaps a couple of words used in common. It's an argument that maybe a grade 2 student might make as to why he didn't share a toy or something. There is no logical comeback to this one.
To quote the revered Monty Python:
Professional Logician monologue
Good evening.
The last scene was interesting from the point of view of a professional logician because it contained a number of logical fallacies; that is, invalid propositional constructions and syllogistic forms, of the type so often committed by my wife. "All wood burns," states Sir Bedevere. "Therefore," he concludes, "all that burns is wood." This is, of course, pure bullshit. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. "Oh yes," one would think.
On the post: Dear Recording Industry: Three Strikes Won't Save Your Business
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When it comes to numbers, Mike has been pretty good about not working the Swedish numbers that showed after TPB issues and IPRED came along, suddenly there was a significant uptick in online music purchases in that country. That is potentially the smoking gun that would show that when the public no longer feels they can file share with impunity that they will change their habits.
Still waiting for a large Techdirt investigation into this.
On the post: Does Freedom Of The Press In The UK Include Just Making Things Up?
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26600885-5006301,00.html
"What we did not expect to find was how much more warlike they are than their peers on campus," study leader Aaron Sell told UK tabloid The Sun.
It seems like the story is all over the place.
On the post: Does Freedom Of The Press In The UK Include Just Making Things Up?
Re: Re:
Other than that, it looks like pure fabrication, or perhaps they used a third party report as the basis for their article.
While this one came after, it's amazing how close their information seems to be:
http://news.bitchbuzz.com/blonde-women-are-more-warlike-and-aggressive.html
Sadly, the original article is behind a "paywall", so we might never know what is really in it.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/35/14743.extract
Add this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8464990.stm
19 January 2010: This story has been revised after Dr Sell made clear to the BBC that his research had set out to test the link between temperament and attractiveness, rather than hair colour, for which he said the link was weaker.
It would appear that many in the media have been mislead, I wonder what the source is.
On the post: Content As Advertising; Advertising As Content On The iPhone
Re: Thanks, Matt
Eric, the issue most of us naysayers on Techdirt have is that Mike tries to make out like something incredibly new is going on, when in fact it is as best an evolution (based on technology) of what has gone on for all of mankind's time on the planet. Movies are just the visual embodiment of the caveman's stories around the fire. Your ads are a kewl use of technology, but effectively are just a spin on music videos adjusted to suit a new technology. Hats off to you for doing it, but it isn't some new paradigm, just the old ways brought up to today's technology.
On the post: As EMI Cites Harvey Danger Lipdub As Inducing Infringement, Harvey Danger Singer Says Lipdub Makes Him Incredibly Happy
Re: Re: Re: Anti-Mike .... may the war begin ...
As for the rest of your post, let's poke some thing:
and yet, as we often point out here, the actions they're taking to "protect" those rights are causing them large costs and a lot of lost business. The point is that everyone who posts here, with very few exceptions, are the customers (or potential customers) of companies like EMI. You consistently trash the ideas presented here, but all we're really saying is "these actions make me not want to buy music, here's a suggestion of how to make me want to buy".
This starts back down the road of entitlement, where end consumers have been taught that they have all sorts of rights over IP that they just don't have. Would it have hurt Vimeo to get the rights first? Why should they have a business model that ignores the rights of others?
Fair use in this case is very unlikely, the video is long, the content is fully used, and it is clearly being used with commercial purpose by Vimeo. If you permit this sort of use, why would the IP holder be allowed to stop the next commercial use?
Vimeo may feel somehow entitled to thumb their noses at copyright law, and the end consumers may feel entitled to get something for nothing, but the buck has to stop somewhere.
The fans like the video and are encouraged to buy more music. The artist responsible for creating the original music is happy with it, stating that it reignited his love for a song that he had long tired of. Everybody wins, or they would if the middlemen weren't so utterly stuck in a previous era of marketing
There is no indication that the fans are buying any more music (they are likely to download it for free from a torrent), and in the end nobody wins. The rights holders who paid the Harvey Danger guys a sizable amount of money up front don't get paid, the artist / writers don't get paid, and pretty much the only people happy are the "fans" and Vimeo, who each get to profit from a free pass. Your version of "everyone" isn't very inclusive, is it? I have a feeling that the "everyone" you point to is the group you are in, but which doesn't include everyone.
I personally used to not care about labels until the RIAA started their overreaching "protection" attempts. Now, it's over 5 years since I've bought a major label album - and, no, I don't "pirate" them either
So wouldn't it be better if Vimeo only lipdubbed those artists that want it, and that Vimeo gets the rights to? Oh, wait, that would mean using music that few people know, few people would want to sing along with, and likely would not help promote Vimeo. I sort of see where this goes.
On the post: Does Freedom Of The Press In The UK Include Just Making Things Up?
On the post: Dear Recording Industry: Three Strikes Won't Save Your Business
Re: Re:
At best they will get sullen acceptance and maybe a short term sales increase before the sharing moves to more private modes of operation (encryption, sneakernet etc).
if it moved to sneakernet,I don't think they would be concerned. It is incredibly hard with a hand to hand passing of information to create the same harm as high speed, world wide illegal file sharing. Sneakernet also requires more time and effort than most people are willing to put in, and thus, is less of an issue.
Moving to a more encrypted system has the same effect, cutting off those people who are marginal on the idea anyway, making it harder for the casual user to share, and as a result, cutting down file sharing. Few if any would claim that 100% of piracy can be stopped, I think the goals are more a case of shifting what the average consumer does on a given day. Shifting even 20 or 30% of the file sharers back to being paying consumers might actually create a tipping point on the whole idea.
On the post: Lord Lucas Keeps Wanting To Chip Away At Digital Economy Bill: Exempt Search Engines
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Community building the open source way.
On the post: What's A Bigger Entitlement Mentality? Demanding Old Business Models Must Remain... Or Liking Free Stuff?
Re: Re:
Good to see you understand the difference and don't fall into Mike's trap. He knows that the vast majority of P2P and torrents are trading illegal content, and doesn't care. He's too busy trying to paint the content producers as fools to really care that what he really supports is widespread piracy.
If this was only about legal free stuff, there wouldn't be much of a discussion.
The problem is that a whole generation is growing up thinking they are entitled to take anything they want for free, without any fear of repercussions. Try to take even a little bit of it away, and they turn into 4chan anonymous mobs and trying to take down anyone who suggests otherwise. It's absolutely stunning to see the level of entitlement these people have.
The effects aren't entirely felt yet, but in the long run, content production will suffer. Everyone enjoys the content, but fewer and fewer people are truly willing to pay. It's short term gain, long term fail.
On the post: Dear Recording Industry: Three Strikes Won't Save Your Business
Re: Re:
There are plenty of laws that are against come people's wishes, from speed limits to drug laws, from shoplifting to pedophilia. Each of those groups has people who think that they do shouldn't be against the law, and yet in each case it is against the law.
Yes, people speed, and people use drugs, and so on... but in the end, they do it knowing they risk fines, prison, or even significant risks to their health. Some people you cannot change, but most people tend to follow the law without reason.
So when it comes to twisted logic, I think your prohibition argument is pretty much right up there.
On the post: Lord Lucas Keeps Wanting To Chip Away At Digital Economy Bill: Exempt Search Engines
Re: Re: Re: Community building the open source way.
On the post: Others Claim To Hold The Trademark On iPad. Is There An App For That?
On the post: Lord Lucas Keeps Wanting To Chip Away At Digital Economy Bill: Exempt Search Engines
Re: Community building the open source way.
On the post: Lord Lucas Keeps Wanting To Chip Away At Digital Economy Bill: Exempt Search Engines
Clearly, this would play nicely for torrent sites, as their "just a search engine" refrain would play nice in the courts. Perhaps Lord Lucas is secretly running TPB now?
On the post: Dear Recording Industry: Three Strikes Won't Save Your Business
Mike, this is where your logic (and Mr Geist's as well) gets twisted. You are looking for an A to B relationship that simply may not exist. Not every assertion of a right automatically leads to some financial benefit.
Three strikes laws and other actions against illegal file sharing is to change the public mentality and perception of how you get music. They aren't looking to suddenly see sales go whipping up as a result of a a violation complaint, they are looking to change the public's idea of right and wrong on the subject. Any change in sales is something that comes over time, not something that suddenly appears moments later.
No matter the amount of furious bootstrapping that you do (linking to a story on your own site which points to an opinion piece you wrote for a newspaper), there is no proof for or against this sort of action. If anything, the short term shift in the Swedish market suggests that changes in public perception does in fact lead to more sales, but that is something you don't seem to want to look more closely at.
So in the end, we are back to pile of opinion on opinion on opinion pieces with little real science or real numbers to back it up. Congrats!
On the post: As EMI Cites Harvey Danger Lipdub As Inducing Infringement, Harvey Danger Singer Says Lipdub Makes Him Incredibly Happy
Re: Anti-Mike .... may the war begin ...
Let's say the record labels (or the rights holders, it isn't just labels, no matter how much you want to blame them) allow this. Then next week, someone makes another video, uses the music again, and sells advertising with it. Then the week after, someone uses the music for their non-profit organization video. Then a week later, someone uses it to sell toothpaste. Where in there should they suddenly react?
You (and Mike) may not like where the line is being drawn, but at the end, there has to be a line, otherwise you are in the give a little, lose a little business until you have no more rights left. It's the old legal slippery slope.
In the end, Mike knows the rights holders are well within their rights here, that Vimeo really doesn't have much to stand on, but we are suppose to be swayed by the "factoids" that the videos are somehow fun and that someone who appeared on the original song thinks they are fun too. I have to laugh, only because people here get upset at me if I don't have anything other than an emotional argument about something, yet this one is entirely on emotion.
So keep going.
On the post: As EMI Cites Harvey Danger Lipdub As Inducing Infringement, Harvey Danger Singer Says Lipdub Makes Him Incredibly Happy
Re: Yep
Carry on.
On the post: As EMI Cites Harvey Danger Lipdub As Inducing Infringement, Harvey Danger Singer Says Lipdub Makes Him Incredibly Happy
Are the videos "happy"? Yes. Do they have rights to the music? No.
You attempt to cloud the rights issue by bringing in things that are just not relevant to the rights situation. Does it matter if the singer is happy or sad? Would it suddenly be terrible is the singer was sad, or would you just tar and feather him like Bono?
No matter how much emotion you try to inject, the story remains the same, Vimeo made and encouraged people to make videos with materials they don't have rights to, and then profited from them (or at least attempted to profit). No happy or sad, just the facts.
On the post: Content As Advertising; Advertising As Content On The iPhone
On the post: Daily Mirror Blocks NewsNow; Will It Start Paying Its Own Sources?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am not saying "my way is right", only that his logic is entirely flawed. There is no "right" way to explain his logic, because there is no connection between the points, except perhaps a couple of words used in common. It's an argument that maybe a grade 2 student might make as to why he didn't share a toy or something. There is no logical comeback to this one.
To quote the revered Monty Python:
Professional Logician monologue
Good evening.
The last scene was interesting from the point of view of a professional logician because it contained a number of logical fallacies; that is, invalid propositional constructions and syllogistic forms, of the type so often committed by my wife. "All wood burns," states Sir Bedevere. "Therefore," he concludes, "all that burns is wood." This is, of course, pure bullshit. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. "Oh yes," one would think.
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~norman/Jokes-file/LogicProfessor.html
Next >>