Big media is always trying to get people to "go back" to whatever model used to be obscenely profitable for them.
Any company that drools over past glories is doomed to find that technology, the marketplace, and consumers tend to forward. The next profitable market lies in the future, not the past. Any company that tries to drive the market backwards is destined to miss the next big thing.
>>I know I should just ignore this, but could you please explain how being opposed to ripping off artists means you are in favor of and justifying ripping off music.
There isn't a hint of anything in the article saying that Universal ripping off artists justifies ripping off anything. At most the article highlights the hypocrisy of a major record label itself ripping off the artists that it claims to be supporting.
>>If sopa passes, I sure hope a lot of people don't start sending take downs to all the services that the RIAA and MPAA and their friends use.
As I understand SOPA it won't be possible for an individual to file a claim like they can under DCMA. You will have to go through the government to do it. Supposedly the government will have a responsibility to do "due diligence" before taking action. However, we have seen in the ICE domain procedures that due diligence seems to consist of a federal employee being told by his industry handler that the content is infringing. I am sure that under SOPA there will be industry reps with direct pipelines. Maybe they will just give federal employees offices at Disney studios or something like that so that the destruction of the Internet can be expedited. The complaint of a private citizen would probably get lost in the system, especially if it was against a big media company.
There should be fines for false claim of copyright. They should be scaled to the size of the statutory amounts that the industry charges for infringement.
>>Granted there are diamonds in the rough, but you have to dig really deep and waste a great deal of time to find anything decent.
True, but there also some great tools out there for filtering the content. The nice thing is that the tools let you filter for what you like. In the past the filtering was done by the labels, and you either accepted what they liked or went without.
If we have to have a copyright system, then there ought to be a penalty for false claim of copyright. It should be a penalty at least as stiff as what the copyright industry claims for infringement. Fair use should be one of the categories where the penalty could be applied.
I just looked at Anthrax torrents. There are torrents with their Discography, but the torrent activity for Anthrax looks pretty weak. Apparently even the pirates are not very interested in Anthrax.
Perhaps Ian should look for another excuse for why his music isn't selling. May I suggest El Nino as a possible excuse? It is a more likely explanation for poor sales than piracy.
>>If every recording artist in the world stopped producing content for a year in protest of piracy it might actually make people think about the consequences of their actions. Imagine a year without any new music. Then maybe the movie studios could get involved and stop releasing any content for a year. Just old music and old movies for a year.
I heartily endorse this idea. It would clear the decks for people who have learned to make money off of their art without relying on big labels and big studios for support. It would be a boon for the independent film industry and a lot of musicians.
I am assuming that you work for one of the big media companies. When can you get started on this project?
Re: "His service protects" -- but more of it will be harmful, eh?
>>Sounds like he sees SOPA as taking away his business -- which doesn't actually create jobs, those are funded by taxpayers to support public schools, are sheer overhead.
Would it have been better for the US if the company had been funded overseas, and the US school money that currently stays in the US instead went to another country? Schools would need the service, but if it wasn't legal in then they would have to look elsewhere.
If your point is that schools are a waste of time and public schools are a theft of money from wealthy taxpayers to pay for education for the poor, then similar examples exist across all levels of business.
Re: "New platforms" aren't wanted when don't guarantee money.
>>And for what seems like the hundredth time, tell me the new "business model", Mike. Specifically, I'm considering making a movie for $100M,
And for the hundred and first time, there is no god-given right to make money off of every project. Perhaps in the future there will be no way to make money off of $100M movies. There is now no way to make money off of gold-handled, diamond-studded buggy whips. Should there have been a law protecting the gold-handled, diamond-studded buggy whip market?
The fact that it costs the big studios $100M to make a movie is largely a self-inflicted problem. Part of that massively inflated number comes from inefficiencies and inflated egos. A large part of that figure comes from the inflated accounting system used by the studios to make certain that movies never make money and therefore don't have to pay residuals. If I buy a $10 watch from myself and pay myself $1000, is it really fair to say I have a $1000 watch?
The $100M movie is a symptom of what happens when you have an artificial (that is, government-created) monopoly. The industry is fighting the free market system, and such artificial are always destined to fail eventually.
>>It's frustrating, but it's one element of promotion that can't be avoided....
Yes there is an alternative to windowed releases. It is called piracy by people in the industry. Only people in the industry feel constrained by 1970's marketing models. Consumers around the world don't feel the constraint and will find other options. New laws and treaties may drive the activity further underground, but will not shut it down.
Industry executives don't want to give up their old ways. They don't want to give up the control and massive profits the old system used to generate. And so they continue to drive a large amount of the piracy out there.
This makes about as much sense as shutting down the interstate highway system because the interstates are used to transport illegal drugs and undocumented workers. There would be a lot of collateral damage, and in the end there would be just as much transport of illegal drugs and workers; they would just move to other modes of transport.
I think this is a case of the judge having made up his mind already. He is going to find a way to discount any facts or reality if it contradicts what he has already decided to do.
>>While other companies are ranting, raving and trying to legislate counterfeiting out of existence, Rovio is working to compete against counterfeiters on their home turf.
The fact is that all the ranting, raving, and draconian legislation isn't going to do a thing to put a dent in counterfeiting. And most important, even if it did have an effect on counterfeiting it would not help sales of authorized merchandise.
This isn't to say that counterfeiting is OK or should be permitted. It is saying that ranting, raving, and spending a great deal of political capital doesn't do a thing to help companies build profits. Counterfeiting does give failed executives an excuse for why their company is not making the expected profit, but the truth is that if a company is profitable then counterfeiting doesn't matter, and if it is unprofitable then stopping counterfeiting probably won't help.
I think the Dummies phenomenon has waned over the last few years. Some of the books were good back when they started, but a lot of the ones I have looked at lately are pathetically shallow. It is pretty easy to find good tutorials online for most of the topics. Once someone masters the concepts of "Google Search for Dummies" the market for the rest of the series pretty much evaporates.
The modern solution to all failing business models is to litigate a bit more profit from your former fans.
On the post: Warner Bros. Wants You To 'Buy' Movies Instead Of Rent... And By 'Buy' It Means Spend More To Still 'Rent'
Any company that drools over past glories is doomed to find that technology, the marketplace, and consumers tend to forward. The next profitable market lies in the future, not the past. Any company that tries to drive the market backwards is destined to miss the next big thing.
On the post: New Study Shows Majority Of Americans Against SOPA; Believe Extreme Copyright Enforcement Is Unreasonable
Re: Actually...
Disrupt their favorite internet sites and see how long it takes them to become voters.
On the post: UMG Finds Perfect Biz Model: Cheat Artists, Then, If Caught, Demand Insurance Company Pay Instead
There isn't a hint of anything in the article saying that Universal ripping off artists justifies ripping off anything. At most the article highlights the hypocrisy of a major record label itself ripping off the artists that it claims to be supporting.
On the post: A Glimpse Of The Future Under SOPA: Warner Bros. Admits It Filed Many False Takedown Notices
Re:
As I understand SOPA it won't be possible for an individual to file a claim like they can under DCMA. You will have to go through the government to do it. Supposedly the government will have a responsibility to do "due diligence" before taking action. However, we have seen in the ICE domain procedures that due diligence seems to consist of a federal employee being told by his industry handler that the content is infringing. I am sure that under SOPA there will be industry reps with direct pipelines. Maybe they will just give federal employees offices at Disney studios or something like that so that the destruction of the Internet can be expedited. The complaint of a private citizen would probably get lost in the system, especially if it was against a big media company.
On the post: A Glimpse Of The Future Under SOPA: Warner Bros. Admits It Filed Many False Takedown Notices
Fines for copyfraud
On the post: Is Anthrax Trying To Become The New Metallica? Guitarist Wants To Kick 'Pirates' Off The Internet
Re: Re: Re:
True, but there also some great tools out there for filtering the content. The nice thing is that the tools let you filter for what you like. In the past the filtering was done by the labels, and you either accepted what they liked or went without.
On the post: Which Causes More Harm: Copyright Or Patents?
Re:
On the post: Is Anthrax Trying To Become The New Metallica? Guitarist Wants To Kick 'Pirates' Off The Internet
Perhaps Ian should look for another excuse for why his music isn't selling. May I suggest El Nino as a possible excuse? It is a more likely explanation for poor sales than piracy.
On the post: Is Anthrax Trying To Become The New Metallica? Guitarist Wants To Kick 'Pirates' Off The Internet
Re:
I heartily endorse this idea. It would clear the decks for people who have learned to make money off of their art without relying on big labels and big studios for support. It would be a boon for the independent film industry and a lot of musicians.
I am assuming that you work for one of the big media companies. When can you get started on this project?
On the post: OpenDNS Tells Congress Not To Create The Great Firewall Of America
Re: Re:
On the post: OpenDNS Tells Congress Not To Create The Great Firewall Of America
Re: "His service protects" -- but more of it will be harmful, eh?
Would it have been better for the US if the company had been funded overseas, and the US school money that currently stays in the US instead went to another country? Schools would need the service, but if it wasn't legal in then they would have to look elsewhere.
If your point is that schools are a waste of time and public schools are a theft of money from wealthy taxpayers to pay for education for the poor, then similar examples exist across all levels of business.
On the post: Rep. Darrell Issa Joins Rep. Lofgren In Saying That SOPA Is A Bad Idea
On the post: Why PROTECT IP/SOPA Is The Exact Wrong Approach To Dealing With Infringement Online
Re: "New platforms" aren't wanted when don't guarantee money.
And for the hundred and first time, there is no god-given right to make money off of every project. Perhaps in the future there will be no way to make money off of $100M movies. There is now no way to make money off of gold-handled, diamond-studded buggy whips. Should there have been a law protecting the gold-handled, diamond-studded buggy whip market?
The fact that it costs the big studios $100M to make a movie is largely a self-inflicted problem. Part of that massively inflated number comes from inefficiencies and inflated egos. A large part of that figure comes from the inflated accounting system used by the studios to make certain that movies never make money and therefore don't have to pay residuals. If I buy a $10 watch from myself and pay myself $1000, is it really fair to say I have a $1000 watch?
The $100M movie is a symptom of what happens when you have an artificial (that is, government-created) monopoly. The industry is fighting the free market system, and such artificial are always destined to fail eventually.
On the post: Record Labels: When You Make It Impossible For People To Pay You, You Drive Them To Unauthorized Versions
Re: Re:
Yes there is an alternative to windowed releases. It is called piracy by people in the industry. Only people in the industry feel constrained by 1970's marketing models. Consumers around the world don't feel the constraint and will find other options. New laws and treaties may drive the activity further underground, but will not shut it down.
Industry executives don't want to give up their old ways. They don't want to give up the control and massive profits the old system used to generate. And so they continue to drive a large amount of the piracy out there.
On the post: Entertainment Industry Gets Another Usenet Provider To Shut Down: Is Usenet Illegal?
On the post: Court Says That Outing Closeted Gays Through Mass Infringement Lawsuits Not A Big Deal
On the post: Future Of Music Coalition Says It Cannot Support E-PARASITE/SOPA In Good Conscience
Re: What would cost more?
On the post: Angry Birds CEO At Peace With Chinese Counterfeit Merchandise
The fact is that all the ranting, raving, and draconian legislation isn't going to do a thing to put a dent in counterfeiting. And most important, even if it did have an effect on counterfeiting it would not help sales of authorized merchandise.
This isn't to say that counterfeiting is OK or should be permitted. It is saying that ranting, raving, and spending a great deal of political capital doesn't do a thing to help companies build profits. Counterfeiting does give failed executives an excuse for why their company is not making the expected profit, but the truth is that if a company is profitable then counterfeiting doesn't matter, and if it is unprofitable then stopping counterfeiting probably won't help.
On the post: Copyright Trolling For Dummies; Publisher John Wiley Sues 27 For Sharing 'For Dummies' Books
The modern solution to all failing business models is to litigate a bit more profit from your former fans.
On the post: Twitter Beats Patent Troll Who Patented Letting Famous People Interact Online
Jury nullification probably doesn't apply in this situation since the jury effectively found for the defense.
Next >>