You should definitely go into marketing. You can be the very first to come up with the idea of no longer making commercials, because you spend all that time and effort and then just give them away. It's gonna revolutionize the marketing sector, trust me.
His argument on that was that it takes a handful of people to maintain a server where as it takes hundreds or so to ship things
Serious answer:
..and if my company no longer has to pay hundreds of people to ship things (indirectly or directly) then I now have much more money to create new jobs.
Non-serious Answer:
..and if my company no longer has to pay hundreds of people to ship things (indirectly or directly) then I can pass that savings on to the customer, who will then have more money to buy beer. More people buying beer means more people moving beer around, which stabilizes the shipping industry.
Shoot, my non-serious answer proves my point, too. Ah well.
The hardest part of hardcore is that stim packs don't heal damaged limbs. I can snipe a radscorpion in the dark from 500 yards, but can't seem to see a landmine 2 ft away.
Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits
It's always refreshing to have an opposing point of view that isn't "omg pirates are thieves!". For that, I thank you. :)
I'm thinking of it kind of like a physical store:
This is your first logic mistake. Whenever (ever!) you try an equate scarce goods to infinite goods, it's broken. (Admittedly, I've done it on several occasions!)
My album is definitely not as good as any Zeppelin album
If your music isn't as good as another band's music then don't blame piracy for when I pick it over yours-- blame your lack of talent. This is how the market should work. The current system can be gamed; You can, as you said, try and sell your music at a lower price than a more talented band or you can dump tons of money into marketing to "sell" a mediocre band. In a world where music isn't sold, but used as marketing, only good music will survive because music will be consumed based solely on its own merits. Surely this is the ideal situation, yes?
I don't think the current scenario is necessarily bad on the whole, just that it's not the wonderland for indies that it's sometimes made out to be.
I slightly disagree. I think that at the present time a forward-looking, talented artist could make a killing for exactly the reason you stated above-- you would undercut the competition drastically. You should also factor in the goodwill you'd gain by legally allowing your music to be shared. Of course, this doesn't help an artist with no talent-- which is what I feel the *real* fear of piracy stems from. (perhaps, subconsciously) I emphasize at the present time because I foresee the level playing field in the future so the goodwill will evaporate (it will be normal) and it's hard to undercut 'free'. So many business models that will work today *can* bank on the goodwill of the fans for not attacking 'pirates'. (or, even better, intentionally sharing their music for free) Strike while the iron is hot, and all that. :)
Some posters' names are links to their music/art/blog/whatnot
I said many, not all, and I specifically said the artists that come here and wail about the evils of piracy. Then again, maybe I answered my own question-- perhaps those artists are so afraid of 'lost sales' (and they think everyone here at TD is pirates) that they don't want us to know about it. Who knows.
I've saved a link to your site to Springpad, my cloud brain of choice, and will check it out. I encourage you to make an account here and participate in more discussions-- it gets old only hearing "nu-uh!" and "you're all thieves!" from people who disagree.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits
good for you if you are willing to except mike's "proof" as all you need.
Mike isn't giving proof, he's discussing the proof given by others. You know, like we are right now.
As for the amount of work you have done I would consider it to be around ZERO.
My point (it was that thing that wooshed over your head when you pretended to read what I typed) was that the AC asked for proof (instead of just looking for it himself) and I was so kind as to give him a place to start-- and it was then commented that all I posted were techdirt links. Since the links to the actual studies are in every article I posted, it seems reasonable that I would wonder exactly how much work I should do to educate our anonymous friend.
After all, are you not pointing to someone elses work who in turn in pointing to someone elses work?
..and you would have me... cut and paste the entire studies into this blog? Is that what you're suggesting?
So what what work, (or critical thinking) did you undertake ?
I never claimed critical thinking; I can't make the guy think about the data, I can only show him where it is. I *did* however search for the applicable links and post them in one spot so he could read at his leisure-- which is work, albeit a minimal amount.
If you only proof that you can provide is the parroting of Mikes statements which are parroting someone elses statements (after considerable distortion). Then that is really no proof at all.
You know, the guy that posted that talking to you IP Maximalists is a worthless endeavor just might be onto something. Ignoring the libel in the flat out lie that you claim Mike considerably distorts the data, he actually links to the data he's talking about so it would be quite easy to call him out on it with specific instances (of which, I can't help but notice, you have none) thus causing him to lose credibility. Now, on the other hand, if some semi-anonymous person comes here and starts spouting off anecdotal 'evidence' of how the sky is falling there a good reason to suspect the truth may be distorted. Hence, why we always say "[Citiation needed]".
And I do not need any proof that you are demeaning to someone possibly new to the site, because you think you know better because your only source of knowledge is filtered through Mike 'brain'.
I think I know better because I actually click through to the links and read from the source. You should really try it sometime.
Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits
Try as they might, they cannot continue to cry "free speech" every time there are legitimate questions raised about their business model.
No legitimate question has been raised about Google's business model. The question was raised that the ProIP bill has the ability to cause chilling effects on free speech. Are you suggesting that merely linking to so-called illegal content being a *felony* won't have a chilling effect on free speech? How could you ever link to anything? A link is just a pointer. You could link to a cute fuzzy kitten one day and the same link, without any action from you, could be a Metallica song. BAM, you're a felon, welcome to the inability to vote or carry a firearm. Do you still think this is a good idea? If so, please post a link to this on your blog or facebook page and I'll change it to something else tomorrow, maybe a revisit of two girls, one cup.
More important, and something that this website seems to regularly overlook, is the negative effect that content theft is having on the not-so-big companies/artists/individuals.
The ones that are more impacted by their obscurity than the "theft" they can't lose because no one knows about them? Seriously? There's a good reason you're a not rich artist, my friend. Oh, and it's not theft.
As a side note/rant, so many "poor artists" come to this blog and cry about how piracy is hurting them and they almost *never* link to an example of their art. If I was an artist I would pimp myself out at anyone whose eyeballs/earballs I could grab. Why no link to your art?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Still wondering how great any music locker is?
You can set up an ampache server fairly easily, but the ampache apps on android (last I checked) leave much to be desired. Also, you can check out subsonic which beats ampache in both ease of setup *and* user interface. (Plus, on Linux, it can be hacked to stream moves-- but not to the android app, sadly.
Myself, I don't feel the future is in music (or other media) lockers.. it's in streaming. Although Netflix is flirting with making me cancel it. (I would use it on my laptop (Ubuntu) and my phone (Android) and my TV (Xbox), but they foolishly block the former two) But I digress; The point is: Why would I spend $1000/yr for 1TB of space via one of these services when I can get Movies (netflix) and TV (Hulu) and Music (Grooveshark for me, since I snagged a $20/yr deal-- but there are many others) for a fraction or that, totaling far larger than 1TB?
Man, that was one big rambling mess, wasn't it? :)
So, since you've (foolishly) taken the stance that Google is doing something wrong here, I'll present you with a question:
I have to *buy* the music before I can upload it to Google Music. If Google wants to give me free space in the cloud for music (and they do, I can upload anything to Google Docs) and then give me a way to stream it to my devices (as opposed to downloading it and then listening, as I can already do, what have they done wrong? The artists have already been paid. How many times should they get paid before I can listen to my music how I want in your world?
I look forward to your logical and well-reasoned response.
On the post: Oh Look, The Overall Music Industry In Canada Has Been Growing As Well...
Re:
On the post: Oh Look, The Overall Music Industry In Canada Has Been Growing As Well...
Re: Re: Re: I had an argument like this
Serious answer:
..and if my company no longer has to pay hundreds of people to ship things (indirectly or directly) then I now have much more money to create new jobs.
Non-serious Answer:
..and if my company no longer has to pay hundreds of people to ship things (indirectly or directly) then I can pass that savings on to the customer, who will then have more money to buy beer. More people buying beer means more people moving beer around, which stabilizes the shipping industry.
Shoot, my non-serious answer proves my point, too. Ah well.
On the post: Travesty Of Thomas Drake Being Charged With Espionage Making Mainstream News
Re:
Did it ever occur to you that if we paid attention to the 'moneys lost' that we wouldn't be in a place 'like we are now'?
On the post: Here We Go Again: Operation In Our Sites Round 4 Kicks Off With More Domains Illegally Seized
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Here We Go Again: Operation In Our Sites Round 4 Kicks Off With More Domains Illegally Seized
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Here We Go Again: Operation In Our Sites Round 4 Kicks Off With More Domains Illegally Seized
Re: Re: Re:
I play fer realz, yo. ;-)
On the post: Here We Go Again: Operation In Our Sites Round 4 Kicks Off With More Domains Illegally Seized
Re:
On the post: What 4th Amendment? Indiana Sheriff Says Random, Warrantless House To House Searches Are Okay
Re: Good Christian citizens do as they're told.
On the post: Google Points Out That PROTECT IP Would Be A 'Disastrous Precedent' For Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits
I'm thinking of it kind of like a physical store:
This is your first logic mistake. Whenever (ever!) you try an equate scarce goods to infinite goods, it's broken. (Admittedly, I've done it on several occasions!)
My album is definitely not as good as any Zeppelin album
If your music isn't as good as another band's music then don't blame piracy for when I pick it over yours-- blame your lack of talent. This is how the market should work. The current system can be gamed; You can, as you said, try and sell your music at a lower price than a more talented band or you can dump tons of money into marketing to "sell" a mediocre band. In a world where music isn't sold, but used as marketing, only good music will survive because music will be consumed based solely on its own merits. Surely this is the ideal situation, yes?
I don't think the current scenario is necessarily bad on the whole, just that it's not the wonderland for indies that it's sometimes made out to be.
I slightly disagree. I think that at the present time a forward-looking, talented artist could make a killing for exactly the reason you stated above-- you would undercut the competition drastically. You should also factor in the goodwill you'd gain by legally allowing your music to be shared. Of course, this doesn't help an artist with no talent-- which is what I feel the *real* fear of piracy stems from. (perhaps, subconsciously) I emphasize at the present time because I foresee the level playing field in the future so the goodwill will evaporate (it will be normal) and it's hard to undercut 'free'. So many business models that will work today *can* bank on the goodwill of the fans for not attacking 'pirates'. (or, even better, intentionally sharing their music for free) Strike while the iron is hot, and all that. :)
Some posters' names are links to their music/art/blog/whatnot
I said many, not all, and I specifically said the artists that come here and wail about the evils of piracy. Then again, maybe I answered my own question-- perhaps those artists are so afraid of 'lost sales' (and they think everyone here at TD is pirates) that they don't want us to know about it. Who knows.
I've saved a link to your site to Springpad, my cloud brain of choice, and will check it out. I encourage you to make an account here and participate in more discussions-- it gets old only hearing "nu-uh!" and "you're all thieves!" from people who disagree.
On the post: What 4th Amendment? Indiana Sheriff Says Random, Warrantless House To House Searches Are Okay
What's next?
/sarc
On the post: Google Points Out That PROTECT IP Would Be A 'Disastrous Precedent' For Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits
Mike isn't giving proof, he's discussing the proof given by others. You know, like we are right now.
As for the amount of work you have done I would consider it to be around ZERO.
My point (it was that thing that wooshed over your head when you pretended to read what I typed) was that the AC asked for proof (instead of just looking for it himself) and I was so kind as to give him a place to start-- and it was then commented that all I posted were techdirt links. Since the links to the actual studies are in every article I posted, it seems reasonable that I would wonder exactly how much work I should do to educate our anonymous friend.
After all, are you not pointing to someone elses work who in turn in pointing to someone elses work?
..and you would have me... cut and paste the entire studies into this blog? Is that what you're suggesting?
So what what work, (or critical thinking) did you undertake ?
I never claimed critical thinking; I can't make the guy think about the data, I can only show him where it is. I *did* however search for the applicable links and post them in one spot so he could read at his leisure-- which is work, albeit a minimal amount.
If you only proof that you can provide is the parroting of Mikes statements which are parroting someone elses statements (after considerable distortion). Then that is really no proof at all.
You know, the guy that posted that talking to you IP Maximalists is a worthless endeavor just might be onto something. Ignoring the libel in the flat out lie that you claim Mike considerably distorts the data, he actually links to the data he's talking about so it would be quite easy to call him out on it with specific instances (of which, I can't help but notice, you have none) thus causing him to lose credibility. Now, on the other hand, if some semi-anonymous person comes here and starts spouting off anecdotal 'evidence' of how the sky is falling there a good reason to suspect the truth may be distorted. Hence, why we always say "[Citiation needed]".
And I do not need any proof that you are demeaning to someone possibly new to the site, because you think you know better because your only source of knowledge is filtered through Mike 'brain'.
I think I know better because I actually click through to the links and read from the source. You should really try it sometime.
On the post: Google Points Out That PROTECT IP Would Be A 'Disastrous Precedent' For Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits
Exactly how much work should I do to make you less ignorant?
So, i showed my proof-- wheres yours?
On the post: Google Points Out That PROTECT IP Would Be A 'Disastrous Precedent' For Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits
On the post: Google Points Out That PROTECT IP Would Be A 'Disastrous Precedent' For Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091101/2005096753.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/artic les/20100503/1254559290.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110204/23401312975/japanese-gove rnment-study-shows-anime-piracy-could-boosts-sales.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/2009011 9/1943093458.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100122/0921257872.shtml
http://www.techd irt.com/articles/20110413/01433513878/new-study-shows-many-artists-think-file-sharing-helps-not-hurt s.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080804/1534311886.shtml
I didn't even have to leave this site! God knows what I'd find if I went to Google.
I wonder what my chances are of getting held for moderation with all these links... :)
On the post: Google Points Out That PROTECT IP Would Be A 'Disastrous Precedent' For Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits
On the post: Google Points Out That PROTECT IP Would Be A 'Disastrous Precedent' For Free Speech
Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits
No legitimate question has been raised about Google's business model. The question was raised that the ProIP bill has the ability to cause chilling effects on free speech. Are you suggesting that merely linking to so-called illegal content being a *felony* won't have a chilling effect on free speech? How could you ever link to anything? A link is just a pointer. You could link to a cute fuzzy kitten one day and the same link, without any action from you, could be a Metallica song. BAM, you're a felon, welcome to the inability to vote or carry a firearm. Do you still think this is a good idea? If so, please post a link to this on your blog or facebook page and I'll change it to something else tomorrow, maybe a revisit of two girls, one cup.
More important, and something that this website seems to regularly overlook, is the negative effect that content theft is having on the not-so-big companies/artists/individuals.
The ones that are more impacted by their obscurity than the "theft" they can't lose because no one knows about them? Seriously? There's a good reason you're a not rich artist, my friend. Oh, and it's not theft.
As a side note/rant, so many "poor artists" come to this blog and cry about how piracy is hurting them and they almost *never* link to an example of their art. If I was an artist I would pimp myself out at anyone whose eyeballs/earballs I could grab. Why no link to your art?
On the post: Google: Major Labels Got In The Way Of Cool Features In Google Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Still wondering how great any music locker is?
Myself, I don't feel the future is in music (or other media) lockers.. it's in streaming. Although Netflix is flirting with making me cancel it. (I would use it on my laptop (Ubuntu) and my phone (Android) and my TV (Xbox), but they foolishly block the former two) But I digress; The point is: Why would I spend $1000/yr for 1TB of space via one of these services when I can get Movies (netflix) and TV (Hulu) and Music (Grooveshark for me, since I snagged a $20/yr deal-- but there are many others) for a fraction or that, totaling far larger than 1TB?
Man, that was one big rambling mess, wasn't it? :)
On the post: Google: Major Labels Got In The Way Of Cool Features In Google Music
Re: Of course it could be cooler
I have to *buy* the music before I can upload it to Google Music. If Google wants to give me free space in the cloud for music (and they do, I can upload anything to Google Docs) and then give me a way to stream it to my devices (as opposed to downloading it and then listening, as I can already do, what have they done wrong? The artists have already been paid. How many times should they get paid before I can listen to my music how I want in your world?
I look forward to your logical and well-reasoned response.
On the post: Google Follows Amazon's Lead: Launching Music Locker, But Ignoring RIAA Demands For Licenses
Re: Invites
If there is a list.
On the post: Dropbox Tries To Kill Off Open Source Project With DMCA Takedown
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>