Nope. Some sports guy did something, fans gave it a nickname, and two completely unrelated dudes, one just a fan and the other some kind of stalker, tried to trademark the nickname.
Actually your definition works. The whole point of this article is that "the totality of goods or services that a company makes available" isn't just music in isolation, and that companies that realize and take advantage of this can do better.
The legal system is defective when a potentially innocent website is brought down prior to any of the process you just described. That is called presumption of guilt, and it's not something anyone likes to see in their legal system. If this website turns out to be legitimate, it will have lost whatever business it would've otherwise had during the downtime and any future business from customers who have now found other unblocked websites and are getting into the habit of using those instead. You keep focusing on if it's guilty, but that's simply not how the process is supposed to work.
Note how many posts featuring dissenting opinions have not been flagged. Don't pretend that covering your nonsense in any way reflects Techdirt's attitude towards reasoned discourse.
Note that the post you're complaining about is accessible with a single mouse click. Even given how idiotic your post was, it hasn't been removed and indeed remains easily accessible.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say Mike never debates "opposers like you", as I've seen him refute some pretty stupid posts. Granted yours are pretty near the bottom of the heap, but that you've actually been reported for your stupidity should be validation enough.
I've never understood why people make fun of that quote. Sure it's not technically accurate, but as far as things-Congress-will-understand go, it's a pretty good analogy.
Not quite. The only times I've ever bought things on iTunes were when I had already been exposed to the content and considered it worth the expense. The ability to download the content quickly whenever I felt like it was the driving force behind my decision.
No one pays $350 for just music either. The music adds value to the rest, as do the lights, speakers, crowd, popcorn, etcetera. All the parts together are what make the concert worth paying for.
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with my lawyers
Consultin' with Iran
And my cash I'd be countin'
Gold bars piled like a mountain
If you couldn't make movies
I'd copyright every ditty
However short or shitty
No data should be free
With the thoughts they'd be buyin'
They could really just stop tryin'
If we couldn't make movies
Oh I, would tell you why
Our artists are our whores
I could sell you things you've bought ten times before
So go lawyers and buy some more
I would make you just a nuffin'
Your wallet full of stuffin'
Your art belongs to me
I would dance and be merry
Life would be a ding-a-derry
If you couldn't make movies
Exactly. So there's something about that digital copy of a music recording that is more valuable than a normal digital copy of a music recording. Maybe it's that they can get it on their iPod/iPad/smartphone more quickly and easily. Maybe it's easier to find. Maybe they just want the artist they're buying from to succeed. Maybe a combination of those, or a reason I haven't thought of. Something's causing those people to pay a dollar for that song when it's free elsewhere.
His music makes things more valuable. It is not that thing's sole source of value and it's probably not the primary reason that most people buy the things his music is in, any more than people buy Star Wars to hear the musical genius of John Williams. The whole point of this article is that music is better used adding value to things instead of trying to be its own product.
Except that music isn't the product of a concert either. If it was then anyone who bought a band's songs on iTunes wouldn't be interested in seeing them in concert. The "seat is the product" idea is indeed wrong, since most of those seats suck, but that doesn't make "music is the product" right. If you were to get a giant speaker that plays at the same volume and quality as a live concert, people would not spend a hundred dollars to sit in front of it.
While I like your proposal in principle, in practice enacting a law banning lawyers from holding office is just asking to have Congress filled with theologians.
Of course there are more executive agreements. Anything that doesn't require Congressional approval is a lot easier to do. That doesn't mean that one is appropriate in this case.
US copyright law only embraces First Amendment principles for those that can afford to go to court when those principles are violated. As those performing takedowns can usually afford to go to court much longer than their victims can, that is very few.
Permissive agreements may work fine for businesses operating more or less on the same level as each other, but governments do not operate on the same level as their citizens. Given how popular SOPA was in Cingress, no one trusts a copyright bill that doesn't have very clear limitations to be interpreted in any way but as broadly as possible. We're just not willing to take that risk.
Opt-out is bullshit. If a country didn't plan on following the treaty they wouldn't sign it.
So it's Netscape vs. Internet Explorer but with maps. The arguments are exactly the same but with different numbers. Do you consider it wrong for a computer to come with its own web browser? If not, explain why this is different.
Google charges 4 dollars per 1,000 views for sites that use its map service more than 25,000 times per day, and directly accessing Google Maps is still free. Yes, that isn't totally completely free for everyone, but it's closer to OSM than it is to Bottin Cartographies.
And Microsoft was judged to have an "unfair advantage" when they started giving away Internet Explorer for free with Windows, but that doesn't mean anyone should have to pay for a web browser.
On the post: Linsanity... At The Trademark Office
Re: Re:
On the post: More Details Emerge On Questionable UK Seizure Of Music Blog
Re: Re:
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: product
On the post: UK Now Seizing Music Blogs (With American Domains) Over Copyright Claims
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Disney And Warner Bros. Prepare To Fight Over Who Owns The Public Domain Wizard Of Oz
Re: Re: wtf...
Honestly, haven't you ever dealt with a hypocrite before?
On the post: UK Now Seizing Music Blogs (With American Domains) Over Copyright Claims
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Note that the post you're complaining about is accessible with a single mouse click. Even given how idiotic your post was, it hasn't been removed and indeed remains easily accessible.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say Mike never debates "opposers like you", as I've seen him refute some pretty stupid posts. Granted yours are pretty near the bottom of the heap, but that you've actually been reported for your stupidity should be validation enough.
On the post: UK Now Seizing Music Blogs (With American Domains) Over Copyright Claims
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: Re: Re: Lost in translation?
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Now Seizing Music Blogs (With American Domains) Over Copyright Claims
Re:
"Kids, don't do music."
On the post: Disney And Warner Bros. Prepare To Fight Over Who Owns The Public Domain Wizard Of Oz
Conferrin' with my lawyers
Consultin' with Iran
And my cash I'd be countin'
Gold bars piled like a mountain
If you couldn't make movies
I'd copyright every ditty
However short or shitty
No data should be free
With the thoughts they'd be buyin'
They could really just stop tryin'
If we couldn't make movies
Oh I, would tell you why
Our artists are our whores
I could sell you things you've bought ten times before
So go lawyers and buy some more
I would make you just a nuffin'
Your wallet full of stuffin'
Your art belongs to me
I would dance and be merry
Life would be a ding-a-derry
If you couldn't make movies
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: Re: Re: meh
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: Re:
On the post: EU Official Who Resigned Over ACTA Details Why ACTA Is Dangerous; While His Replacement Seems Unlikely To Care
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: EU Official Who Resigned Over ACTA Details Why ACTA Is Dangerous; While His Replacement Seems Unlikely To Care
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: EU Official Who Resigned Over ACTA Details Why ACTA Is Dangerous; While His Replacement Seems Unlikely To Care
Re:
Permissive agreements may work fine for businesses operating more or less on the same level as each other, but governments do not operate on the same level as their citizens. Given how popular SOPA was in Cingress, no one trusts a copyright bill that doesn't have very clear limitations to be interpreted in any way but as broadly as possible. We're just not willing to take that risk.
Opt-out is bullshit. If a country didn't plan on following the treaty they wouldn't sign it.
On the post: French Court Fails Digital Economics; Claims Free Google Maps Is Illegal
Re: You got it wrong
On the post: French Court Fails Digital Economics; Claims Free Google Maps Is Illegal
Re: Textbook exmple of dumping
On the post: French Court Fails Digital Economics; Claims Free Google Maps Is Illegal
Re:
Next >>