Sure...as soon as you post an example of everyone who has ever been wrongly convicted of murder. Unless you're stupid enough to believe nobody ever has...
The anti-slavery movement was illegal, and it undermined a business model.
Whatever lionizing you choose to do over Union soldiers (who, by the way, burned half of the South down and massacred civilians - and slaves), it does nothing to disprove the point.
What collateral damage? How about the innocent people who get accused of "copyright infringement" and are put in a situation where they have to pay exorbitant legal fees (if they're among the lucky few who can afford them in the first place) to prove that they AREN'T guilty?
That same "parasitic behavior" that you're bemoaning is what created the digital music market place in the first place. Had it not been for Napster and the sites that followed, commercial music consumers would still be paying $18 for CDs.
But then again, that would be a good thing to people like you, wouldn't it?
1. "Could care less" means they do care to an extent. I assume what you mean to have written was they "couldn't care less."
2. Given how much guys like Biden whine about piracy, how we now have an "IP czar," and seeing how the U.S. government has leaned on Sweden and Spain to blindly adopt U.S. copyright standards, I think it's pretty damn obvious that they DO care, quite a bit.
Wouldn't that make her a "cheap ass" that "feels entitled" to money?
Business models come and go. If you don't like that, stop making movies. At least five more filmmakers who ARE willing to innovate will take your place.
I love how shills equate any criticism of the industry with an apologia for piracy.
"You're either with us or against us! And if you have any problem with the music industry's heavy-handed, dishonest tactics, it must mean you're a pirate!"
I don't buy commercial music, nor do I download it for free. If you produce commercial music, that should make me every bit as bad, if not worse, than those who do download it for free...since you're ENTITLED to make a living at it, and all...
Oh, I suppose next you're going to say that the market for hamburgers is being gutted because McDonald's is selling more of them than ever?
If more people are making music than ever before, music isn't dying. Is it that hard to figure out, or are you just playing Mad Libs in your head to avoid admitting you're wrong?
You also forgot to include the cost of your time as a marginal cost (hourly rate / number of possible pours) = marginal labor costs. You have a limited and not unlimited amount of time to work.
If you don't wish to continue producing content without a market for directly selling every copy of your work, then perhaps you should just stop producing content. At least five more producers who ARE willing would take your place.
All that "free" stuff basically guts the market out.
Markets come and go. How, precisely, is that a bad thing, save for the handful of entitled whiners who think the market shouldn't change based on their wishes alone? Or are you naive enough to think that people will simply stop creating once they aren't able directly sell copies? Creativity is far older than the market for copies.
We have seen it in music. Given the chance and the tools, people will take the music for nothing. They will sneak in to the concerts for free if they can, and generally, they will sponge.
Yet more music is being recorded and released today than at any other point in history. Sounds pretty damn good to me.
I should have specified a "major label." I've purchased music through non-RIAA affiliated labels in the past, although I generally don't even do that anymore, since I found out that majors own portions of many of them or at least handle their distribution.
Not that all of them do, mind you, but I tend to avoid all labels on general principle.
First cartoon again is meaningless. The "faceless corporation" is a strawman in this. The artist could sell their CDs on the spot, produced by the "faceless corporation" and nobody would know the difference. There is no restriction.
Apart from the fact that the "faceless corporation" would still take all of the money from the CD sold and still leave the artist with 10 cents...only, of course, after they sold about 800,000 copies or so. Prior to that, that same "faceless corporation" gets ALL of it.
Second, well, again - They band might make less money on theory, but in reality, out of that 25 cents they probably spent $1 to get there if they self produced and self-manage and self distribute.
Then they need to learn how to budget more effectively. We live in the era of high-quality home recording equipment and internet distribution. ANYONE can cut a great-sounding album for peanuts today...hell, all I ever listen to is self-released music through Jamendo, and it sounds a hell of a lot better than the commercial rubbish that some producer gets about $80,000 to "engineer" on a gigantic studio console that was probably built 30 years ago.
The real alternative is that you aren't willing to be a consumer of something commercial, you shouldn't also expect to get the rights to it.
If only it were so simple. As I've said, I only listen to Creative Commons licensed music I get from Jamendo. Yet the record labels, "performance rights" organizations, and trade groups have launched an assault recently on Creative Commons, claiming that musicians shouldn't be allowed to release digital music for free, on the grounds that it "devalues" their own commercial content.
In other words, it wasn't enough for them to torture the concept of "copyright" to the ridiculous lengths that they have, now they also want take real alternatives away from the musicians who don't have entitlement complexes.
Each of one us could buy a $10 download from Itunes or whatever and we could all enjoy the music, happy knowing that we contributed to making things work out?
The only thing that would contribute to is a monstrous organization that sues single mothers for $2 million for swapping 24 songs online, then gloating about destroying her life. I don't mind paying artists. I will never pay a record label.
Do you know how tired music people are of having tech geeks/nerds tell them how their life should be lived?
They can't be as tired as I am of having cigar-chomping, txakoli-sipping empty suits who work for record labels, "performance rights" organizations, and trade groups telling me what music I can listen to and how much of my money needs to fill their coffers.
The market establishes itself. And currently, the market has come to the obvious conclusion that infinite goods are free. All the wishful thinking in the world will never change that.
I'll assume you meant the "content should be free" crowd, not the "information should be free" crowd. Information most certainly should be - and in fact, is - free.
As for content, I've never been a free-content type of person in the past, and have reached the point that I don't really care if industry-produced content is free or not, because I'm consuming less and less of it every day.
But with stories like this out there, and with the blatantly anti-culture stance that so many copyright cartels have reached in the present, I'm frankly amazed that anyone like you can defend them. Unless, of course, you're one of the members of the American oligarchy that seeks to profit from the exploitation of the public.
Make as many pathetic "stoner" jokes as you want...Copyright has become a monster, and monsters should never be tolerated. People like you have driven me to this position.
No, the US government isn't a small group of people, it is "we the people".
Except, of course, for the ones who are kept in the dark in order to prevent educated voting decisions. Which is only all of us. Truth is essential to a functioning democracy.
What wikileaks and the 4chan mob is suggesting is anarchy, where everyone is involved in everything all the time, that as citizens we feel some right to interrupt those that the majority chose to lead us, and inflict upon them our minority views.
Your minority is encroaching upon the essential liberties of the rest of the world. You actually support the CIA abducting an innocent German citizen, then his abductors and torturers facing no justice for their crimes? Not only does that information need to be leaked, the torturers need to be locked up, NOW.
It is the minority attempting to impose change on the majority, by any means they see fit, regardless of the damages made to accomplish it. In this manner, they are no different from the IRA, Basque seperatists, the Tamil Tigers, or even Bin Hiding and his friends.
Don't forget those that participated in the Boston Tea Party and the Underground Railroad. Damned terrorists.
we should not tolerate and not condone terrorist acts
What we shouldn't tolerate is government corruption and crimes against humanity. Examples should made...start with the soldiers and CIA agents proven to have engaged in abduction, torture, and murder, then work up to the highest offices.
On the post: Piracy Isn't The Problem, A Bad Business Model Is The Problem
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uhmmm...
On the post: Piracy Isn't The Problem, A Bad Business Model Is The Problem
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uhmmm...
Whatever lionizing you choose to do over Union soldiers (who, by the way, burned half of the South down and massacred civilians - and slaves), it does nothing to disprove the point.
On the post: Exposing The False Sanctity Of 'Intellectual Property'
Re:
On the post: Piracy Isn't The Problem, A Bad Business Model Is The Problem
Re: Re: Re: Re: Uhmmm...
On the post: Piracy Isn't The Problem, A Bad Business Model Is The Problem
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uhmmm...
That same "parasitic behavior" that you're bemoaning is what created the digital music market place in the first place. Had it not been for Napster and the sites that followed, commercial music consumers would still be paying $18 for CDs.
But then again, that would be a good thing to people like you, wouldn't it?
On the post: Piracy Isn't The Problem, A Bad Business Model Is The Problem
Re: Re: Re: Re: Uhmmm...
2. Given how much guys like Biden whine about piracy, how we now have an "IP czar," and seeing how the U.S. government has leaned on Sweden and Spain to blindly adopt U.S. copyright standards, I think it's pretty damn obvious that they DO care, quite a bit.
On the post: Piracy Isn't The Problem, A Bad Business Model Is The Problem
Re: Re: Re:
Wouldn't that make her a "cheap ass" that "feels entitled" to money?
Business models come and go. If you don't like that, stop making movies. At least five more filmmakers who ARE willing to innovate will take your place.
On the post: Discussing The Music Industry Comically Speaking, With Mimi & Eunice
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then why should anybody pay any attention to your post? Especially considering all of your arguments were addressed in my post directly above yours.
Music is thriving...it's the recording industry that's dying. Good riddance.
On the post: Discussing The Music Industry Comically Speaking, With Mimi & Eunice
Re: @Christoper Gizzi
"You're either with us or against us! And if you have any problem with the music industry's heavy-handed, dishonest tactics, it must mean you're a pirate!"
I don't buy commercial music, nor do I download it for free. If you produce commercial music, that should make me every bit as bad, if not worse, than those who do download it for free...since you're ENTITLED to make a living at it, and all...
On the post: Debunking The 'But People Just Want Stuff For Free' Myth
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Addtional Free Sodomy
If more people are making music than ever before, music isn't dying. Is it that hard to figure out, or are you just playing Mad Libs in your head to avoid admitting you're wrong?
On the post: Debunking The 'But People Just Want Stuff For Free' Myth
Re: Re: Re: Addtional Free Sodomy
If you don't wish to continue producing content without a market for directly selling every copy of your work, then perhaps you should just stop producing content. At least five more producers who ARE willing would take your place.
All that "free" stuff basically guts the market out.
Markets come and go. How, precisely, is that a bad thing, save for the handful of entitled whiners who think the market shouldn't change based on their wishes alone? Or are you naive enough to think that people will simply stop creating once they aren't able directly sell copies? Creativity is far older than the market for copies.
We have seen it in music. Given the chance and the tools, people will take the music for nothing. They will sneak in to the concerts for free if they can, and generally, they will sponge.
Yet more music is being recorded and released today than at any other point in history. Sounds pretty damn good to me.
On the post: Debunking The 'But People Just Want Stuff For Free' Myth
Re: Re: Re:
And you have a lot of nerve talking about market price, when the fact that the market is leaning towards free is precisely what you're bitching about.
On the post: Ok Go Explains There Are Lots Of Ways To Make Money If You Can Get Fans
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not that all of them do, mind you, but I tend to avoid all labels on general principle.
On the post: Discussing The Music Industry Comically Speaking, With Mimi & Eunice
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apart from the fact that the "faceless corporation" would still take all of the money from the CD sold and still leave the artist with 10 cents...only, of course, after they sold about 800,000 copies or so. Prior to that, that same "faceless corporation" gets ALL of it.
Second, well, again - They band might make less money on theory, but in reality, out of that 25 cents they probably spent $1 to get there if they self produced and self-manage and self distribute.
Then they need to learn how to budget more effectively. We live in the era of high-quality home recording equipment and internet distribution. ANYONE can cut a great-sounding album for peanuts today...hell, all I ever listen to is self-released music through Jamendo, and it sounds a hell of a lot better than the commercial rubbish that some producer gets about $80,000 to "engineer" on a gigantic studio console that was probably built 30 years ago.
The real alternative is that you aren't willing to be a consumer of something commercial, you shouldn't also expect to get the rights to it.
If only it were so simple. As I've said, I only listen to Creative Commons licensed music I get from Jamendo. Yet the record labels, "performance rights" organizations, and trade groups have launched an assault recently on Creative Commons, claiming that musicians shouldn't be allowed to release digital music for free, on the grounds that it "devalues" their own commercial content.
In other words, it wasn't enough for them to torture the concept of "copyright" to the ridiculous lengths that they have, now they also want take real alternatives away from the musicians who don't have entitlement complexes.
On the post: Ok Go Explains There Are Lots Of Ways To Make Money If You Can Get Fans
Re: Re: Re:
The only thing that would contribute to is a monstrous organization that sues single mothers for $2 million for swapping 24 songs online, then gloating about destroying her life. I don't mind paying artists. I will never pay a record label.
On the post: Ok Go Explains There Are Lots Of Ways To Make Money If You Can Get Fans
Re: Re: Re:
They can't be as tired as I am of having cigar-chomping, txakoli-sipping empty suits who work for record labels, "performance rights" organizations, and trade groups telling me what music I can listen to and how much of my money needs to fill their coffers.
The market establishes itself. And currently, the market has come to the obvious conclusion that infinite goods are free. All the wishful thinking in the world will never change that.
On the post: Supreme Court Ruling: You May Not Be Able To Legally Sell A Product First Made Outside The US
Re: Re:
As for content, I've never been a free-content type of person in the past, and have reached the point that I don't really care if industry-produced content is free or not, because I'm consuming less and less of it every day.
But with stories like this out there, and with the blatantly anti-culture stance that so many copyright cartels have reached in the present, I'm frankly amazed that anyone like you can defend them. Unless, of course, you're one of the members of the American oligarchy that seeks to profit from the exploitation of the public.
Make as many pathetic "stoner" jokes as you want...Copyright has become a monster, and monsters should never be tolerated. People like you have driven me to this position.
On the post: Supreme Court Ruling: You May Not Be Able To Legally Sell A Product First Made Outside The US
On the post: Operation Payback And Wikileaks Show The Battle Lines Are About Distributed & Open vs. Centralized & Closed
Re: Re: Re:
Except, of course, for the ones who are kept in the dark in order to prevent educated voting decisions. Which is only all of us. Truth is essential to a functioning democracy.
What wikileaks and the 4chan mob is suggesting is anarchy, where everyone is involved in everything all the time, that as citizens we feel some right to interrupt those that the majority chose to lead us, and inflict upon them our minority views.
Your minority is encroaching upon the essential liberties of the rest of the world. You actually support the CIA abducting an innocent German citizen, then his abductors and torturers facing no justice for their crimes? Not only does that information need to be leaked, the torturers need to be locked up, NOW.
It is the minority attempting to impose change on the majority, by any means they see fit, regardless of the damages made to accomplish it. In this manner, they are no different from the IRA, Basque seperatists, the Tamil Tigers, or even Bin Hiding and his friends.
Don't forget those that participated in the Boston Tea Party and the Underground Railroad. Damned terrorists.
we should not tolerate and not condone terrorist acts
What we shouldn't tolerate is government corruption and crimes against humanity. Examples should made...start with the soldiers and CIA agents proven to have engaged in abduction, torture, and murder, then work up to the highest offices.
On the post: Operation Payback And Wikileaks Show The Battle Lines Are About Distributed & Open vs. Centralized & Closed
Re:
You mean the U.S. government?
Next >>