I wrote a response too Richard Owens asking him to disclose his affiliations. I also aimed this at several other 'legal professionals' including Michael Geist. So far Richard hasn't responded, and quite frankly I don't expect him, Barry Sookman, or James Gannon to respond. Quite frankly they have nothing to gain, and everything to loose by doing so.
And yes, they do know about the article. I emailed them all directly, and copied the email to several prominent Canadian politicians including the Prime Minister.
It's about race, but it's also about class. Poor black folks can't afford lawyers. Middle class white folks can. It's a lot easier to threaten those who aren't able to afford to hire a lawyer, and it's a lot easier to threaten someone with a different skin color.
I've looked at the available apps for things like the New York Times, Washington Post, etc., and they really aren't financially viable. And of course the IPad comes with a web browser, so why do you need them?
The apps that will do well, are the specialty ones like Music Reader, a digital music stand - this is great for musicians, rather than carry around a ten pound binder, you carry a 1.5 pound IPad, and it searches for you. The basic applications will be a disaster, just like they are a disaster on the IPhone, the value proposition doesn't exist.
I have to admit I wasn't expecting the Judge to be so forthright. The Administration will of course try to appeal, however I think that they won't get anywhere this time.
It just doesn't know it yet. Artists no longer need the distribution system that the industry set up, and are abandoning the major labels in hordes.
Of course the labels are upset about this, and would really like to make it illegal for artists to deal directly with consumers. Since even they know they can't do that, they are trying to make it hard for artists to deal directly, like in Korea where an act cannot upload music to their own blog.
They also appear to be trying to redefine copyright, so that copyrights held by the labels are more important than copyrights held by the artists. The software industry appears to be trying the same thing, see the letter sent to the USTR which is pushing for the US to act against countries that specify open source software, with the claim that they don't recognize copyright. That open source software is copyrighted too doesn't get mentioned...
We were car hunting last summer. The Ford Fusion was one option, it looked pretty good in a lot of ways, but then we found out that the model we liked came with the Microsoft Sync software as standard. I asked about getting the model without it, and was told it was impossible. At which point I told the sales rep that having Microsoft software in the car was a deal breaker, and walked out.
I wrote a blog posting about this, and emailed the dealership to let them know. They never responded, and nor did Ford.
A while back the Huffington Post had an article about an adult film star who had tickets to a Phoenix Coyotes game, and for $500.00 you could attend the game with her. I thought that was a rather imaginative idea, and wondered if she had heard of Mike's ideas on connecting with fans. She had a website but it hadn't been recently updated at the time.
So I posted a reply here that mentioned her, and then emailed her the link.
A couple of days later I went back to her site, and wham - everything had changed. She's added a lot of new stuff, much of which looks like it came from Mike's suggestions. Here's one paragraph from her 'Sports Dating' page:
I have developed a plan to satisfy the needs of every fantasy sports fan. My goal is to become the
#1 most interactive porn star in the world
with the launch of KATIE MICHAELS’ SPORTS FANTASY DATING LEAGUE, the SFDL for short.
Now you may or may not like the adult film industry. You may ever consider this an attempt to get around the prostitution laws. However it is an interesting attempt to reach out to her fan base, and I suspect that it will work, and I know it will make her more money than acting in adult films will. And of course it will make her more 'marketable' which means she will get paid more for her next film...
Now I can't prove that she read the email I sent her, or followed the link to Techdirt, but the date of the website overhaul is suggestive, and I wish her all the luck in the world.
Even the Adult Entertainment Industry has caught on
I saw an article in the Huffington Post about a young lady named Katie Michaels, who is a stripper, and has been in several 'adult' videos. She took out an ad on Craigslist, apparently she had tickets to the January 30th Coyotes vs Rangers game in Phoenix, and for $500.00 you got the opportunity to take her to the game. If you want to check out what she looks like, go to her website. She's rather pretty, and does the splits really well.
Taking out a Craigslist ad to offer a fan a chance to take you to a hockey game. That's what you call a valued added marketing approach!
But then she appears to be pretty bright, she uses a Mac.
I'm Canadian, and wasn't aware that there was an aboriginal flag, and I'm willing to bet that most people outside of Australia don't know. This was a great chance to advertise for the aboriginal community, and now it's gone.
I hate thinking about these guys, I really do. The worst part is that they only benefit the big artists, the small guys, as usual gets screwed. And if they keep pushing this way, they aren't going to benefit the big guys either.
You should check out Tom Smith. Tom is one of the funniest people that I know. And yes, this is an unashamed plug for a person that I really like, and who's music that I enjoy. Tom used to work in a bank, but he's now a full time musician, with no label. He does it all himself. Check out:
Is the same thing, and why Rogers is so aggressive in enforcing bit caps. On-Demand is exempt the bit caps. Rogers want you to only watch it's programming.
Oh, and Rogers service sucks. If you stream a You-Tube video it skips and jumps, even though Rogers claims it has the fastest internet service in Canada.
We didn't hear this type of complaint when the Beatles record company managed to book the band on the Ed Sullivan show in 1964 even though only the rich could afford color TV sets, and many middle class homes lacked black and white sets at that time.
A meaningless argument. A TV wouldn't have been bought to only be used for two hours and thrown away. I would say that almost every middle class house at that time had at least some sort of TV, or access to one (friends, family, etc). The cost of the TV doesn't in any way equate to an over priced concert ticket.
No, it's not a meaningless argument. There were those who had 'access' and those who didn't have 'access'. Those who had access were able to watch, those who didn't missed out. Just as those who have tickets to an event see it, and those who don't have tickets don't see it.
If Madonna is making more money off touring than recording an album, she will tour, and the record company looses album sales. They want her in the studio recording, not on tour where they can't 'monetize her brand.'
Madonna signed with Live Nation, which gets money on either side, they don't care. But Madonna knows that putting out new material and getting chart topping songs is a great way to drive concert ticket sales. It's just too bad that the price of seats for her concerts is out of the reach of most people, in the range of food for a couple of months for a single man.
You do take things literally, don't you? How about Sir Paul McCartney? Avril Lavigne? The Rolling Stones? K-Fed? Urban Terrorists?
Live Nation is concerned about both sides, and are working to take over ticketmaster so they can just about monopolize the whole deal. They make the 'egalitarian record companies' look like wimps.
Live concerts aren't egalitarian, and nobody is suggesting that they should be. But when the price is pushed to the absolute limit (in your Deep Purple case, setting the price so only 14,000 out of the 2 million people could afford them) isn't exactly a smooth CwF move. That the average teenage music fan can't afford to attend a concert is a crime. Yes, supply and demand says the price can be that high, but it is short term gain for long term loss, as people learn to stop even dreaming of attending over priced concerts.
In that case they will loose business. I will only pay so much for a concert ticket. Anything beyond that, and I'll go sit in my studio, and record something.
That isn't egalitarian, that is just good business, not greedy business.
If a band prices it's fans out of the market, it is greedy business. Fans are what make things work.
I missed this one when it was published, just found it now, and it is hilarious. You are right. It is just about impossible to 'Opt-Out' of copyright.
But in my opinion copyright isn't the problem. It is people and organizations who misuse copyright that are the problem, and since the law doesn't recognize copyright misuse as an issue, it is practically impossible to do anything about those cretins.
Except fight them, one by one, post by post. Thank you for doing this.
The entire concept is an excuse to try to block bands from 'monetizing their brands' other that through the 'egalitarian record companies.'
Just think - live venues have been available only to a limited number of fans from the beginning. I went to see Deep Purple once, there were about 14,000 people in attendance, EVERY seat was sold out. The venue was in a city that had 2,000,000 population at the time. Did Deep Purple stick around so that every possible fan could see them? No, it was billed as our only chance to see them in Toronto. Ever.
Was this egalitarian? No. Have live venues ever been egalitarian? No.
We didn't hear this type of complaint when the Beatles record company managed to book the band on the Ed Sullivan show in 1964 even though only the rich could afford color TV sets, and many middle class homes lacked black and white sets at that time. No, they make this argument when they are in danger of losing control of the business that has made many of them very well off, often at the expense of the artists who they claim to represent.
It all comes down to money. If Madonna is making more money off touring than recording an album, she will tour, and the record company looses album sales. They want her in the studio recording, not on tour where they can't 'monetize her brand.' Of course the 'egalitarian record companies' aren't concerned about those who can't afford to buy a CD. Only those who can't afford to buy concert tickets. Curious that.
Sorry if I got a bit long winded - I've been wondering what the next attack vector would be, and this appears to be it.
Doctor Ficsor is inaccurate in his two articles. I have pointed this out to him at great length here, here, and here. Professor Geist's most recent post also covers Doctor Ficsor's inaccuracies.
The biggest issue that I can see at present is that this treaty appears to have been put together without any peer reviewed studies showing that it was:
1) Necessary
2) Beneficial
3) Legal (privacy concerns among other things)
His claim that the DMCA makes the United States compliant with the treaty is false (see my third article).
Both Barry Sookman and Mihaly Ficsor seem to have sold their souls to the "content industries", like the coal miner sold his to the company store in the classic song Sixteen Tons.
On the post: Canadian Entertainment Industry Begins New Media Campaign For Draconian Copyright Laws
My Response to Richard Owens
And yes, they do know about the article. I emailed them all directly, and copied the email to several prominent Canadian politicians including the Prime Minister.
Wayne aka The Mad Hatter
On the post: Why Copyright Criminals Filmmakers Won't Get Sued? Because They'd Win
Sad, but true.
On the post: Could Copyright Hold Back iPad Sales In Canada And Elsewhere?
Who cares?
The apps that will do well, are the specialty ones like Music Reader, a digital music stand - this is great for musicians, rather than carry around a ten pound binder, you carry a 1.5 pound IPad, and it searches for you. The basic applications will be a disaster, just like they are a disaster on the IPhone, the value proposition doesn't exist.
On the post: Court Says President Bush Violated Wiretapping Laws With Warrantless Wiretap
Wow
On the post: Sorry, There's No Silver Bullet Business Model For The Music Industry
The 'Recording Industry' is dead
Of course the labels are upset about this, and would really like to make it illegal for artists to deal directly with consumers. Since even they know they can't do that, they are trying to make it hard for artists to deal directly, like in Korea where an act cannot upload music to their own blog.
They also appear to be trying to redefine copyright, so that copyrights held by the labels are more important than copyrights held by the artists. The software industry appears to be trying the same thing, see the letter sent to the USTR which is pushing for the US to act against countries that specify open source software, with the claim that they don't recognize copyright. That open source software is copyrighted too doesn't get mentioned...
On the post: As Cars Get More Complicated, Maybe Open Source Is The Way
Microsoft Software in cars
I wrote a blog posting about this, and emailed the dealership to let them know. They never responded, and nor did Ford.
We bought a Honda.
On the post: Connecting With Fans And Giving Them A Reason To Buy Requires A Lot Of Experimenting
Katie Michaels
So I posted a reply here that mentioned her, and then emailed her the link.
A couple of days later I went back to her site, and wham - everything had changed. She's added a lot of new stuff, much of which looks like it came from Mike's suggestions. Here's one paragraph from her 'Sports Dating' page:
You can read the above here.
Now you may or may not like the adult film industry. You may ever consider this an attempt to get around the prostitution laws. However it is an interesting attempt to reach out to her fan base, and I suspect that it will work, and I know it will make her more money than acting in adult films will. And of course it will make her more 'marketable' which means she will get paid more for her next film...
Now I can't prove that she read the email I sent her, or followed the link to Techdirt, but the date of the website overhaul is suggestive, and I wish her all the luck in the world.
On the post: iiNet Wins! AFACT Has To Pay. Australian Court Says ISPs Not Responsible For Infringing Users
Anyone want to bet that the ACTA push gets stronger?
On the post: Will The Recording Industry Pay For ISP Monitoring In The UK?
BPI paying the costs
That would be hilarious. Totally hilarious. BPI must be terrified that they end up having to pick up the bill.
On the post: Amazon, Macmillan Fight Over Ebook Prices; After Amazon Removes Macmillan Titles, It Caves To Higher Prices
Comments
Sarah Zettel
Andrew Wheeler
Charles Stross
Cherie Priest
Louise Marley
Jay Lake
Brenda Cooper
Kathryn Cramer
John Scalzi
Cory Doctorow
MacMillan's letter to authors
New York Times
LA Times
Amazon's surrender letter
This time I tend to believe McMillan. Now I'll admit that part of the reason I tend to believe McMillan is Amazon's insistence on use of Kindle DRM EVEN WHEN THE PUBLISHER/AUTHOR DOESN"T WANT IT. The only reason to use DRM is lock in. Amazon wants lock in, and I don't like anyone who likes lock in.
But that's me. I have no doubt there are masochists out there who love being tied to the ceiling and whipped. If that's what they want, well, they can have it.
On the post: Lady Gaga's Use Of Free Music
Even the Adult Entertainment Industry has caught on
Taking out a Craigslist ad to offer a fan a chance to take you to a hockey game. That's what you call a valued added marketing approach!
But then she appears to be pretty bright, she uses a Mac.
On the post: Google Prevented From Using Australian Aboriginal Flag Because It's Covered By Copyright
Ah, but you are Australian, correct?
On the post: Prisons And Hair Dressers Latest To Push Back On Ridiculous Collection Society Demands
Collection Societies
On the post: Wiggling Their Way To Musical Success Without A Label
Tom Smith
http://www.tomsmithonline.com/
You can also find his music on ITunes.
On the post: Peter Jackson Freaks Out About BitTorrent Leak Of The Lovely Bones
Peter Jackson is good?
On the post: Cable Companies Appear To Be Screwing Up TV Everywhere
Rogers On-Demand in Canada
Oh, and Rogers service sucks. If you stream a You-Tube video it skips and jumps, even though Rogers claims it has the fastest internet service in Canada.
On the post: Are New Music Tiers Segregating Fans?
The Anti-Mike doesn't understand 'access'
No, it's not a meaningless argument. There were those who had 'access' and those who didn't have 'access'. Those who had access were able to watch, those who didn't missed out. Just as those who have tickets to an event see it, and those who don't have tickets don't see it.
You do take things literally, don't you? How about Sir Paul McCartney? Avril Lavigne? The Rolling Stones? K-Fed? Urban Terrorists?
In that case they will loose business. I will only pay so much for a concert ticket. Anything beyond that, and I'll go sit in my studio, and record something.
If a band prices it's fans out of the market, it is greedy business. Fans are what make things work.
On the post: Why Is It So Difficult To Opt-Out Of Copyright?
Oh my...
I missed this one when it was published, just found it now, and it is hilarious. You are right. It is just about impossible to 'Opt-Out' of copyright.
But in my opinion copyright isn't the problem. It is people and organizations who misuse copyright that are the problem, and since the law doesn't recognize copyright misuse as an issue, it is practically impossible to do anything about those cretins.
Except fight them, one by one, post by post. Thank you for doing this.
On the post: Are New Music Tiers Segregating Fans?
Ah, but you both are missing the point
Just think - live venues have been available only to a limited number of fans from the beginning. I went to see Deep Purple once, there were about 14,000 people in attendance, EVERY seat was sold out. The venue was in a city that had 2,000,000 population at the time. Did Deep Purple stick around so that every possible fan could see them? No, it was billed as our only chance to see them in Toronto. Ever.
Was this egalitarian? No. Have live venues ever been egalitarian? No.
We didn't hear this type of complaint when the Beatles record company managed to book the band on the Ed Sullivan show in 1964 even though only the rich could afford color TV sets, and many middle class homes lacked black and white sets at that time. No, they make this argument when they are in danger of losing control of the business that has made many of them very well off, often at the expense of the artists who they claim to represent.
It all comes down to money. If Madonna is making more money off touring than recording an album, she will tour, and the record company looses album sales. They want her in the studio recording, not on tour where they can't 'monetize her brand.' Of course the 'egalitarian record companies' aren't concerned about those who can't afford to buy a CD. Only those who can't afford to buy concert tickets. Curious that.
Sorry if I got a bit long winded - I've been wondering what the next attack vector would be, and this appears to be it.
On the post: Hungarian Copyright Treaty Author Insists That Those Who Don't Like Anti-Circumvention Clauses Are 'Hatred-Driven' Maoists
The biggest issue that I can see at present is that this treaty appears to have been put together without any peer reviewed studies showing that it was:
1) Necessary
2) Beneficial
3) Legal (privacy concerns among other things)
His claim that the DMCA makes the United States compliant with the treaty is false (see my third article).
Both Barry Sookman and Mihaly Ficsor seem to have sold their souls to the "content industries", like the coal miner sold his to the company store in the classic song Sixteen Tons.
Next >>