Radio and Broadcast TV were 'Free' for longer than cable and XM has been charging for the service.
Odd - by some logic, they should not have survived.
Of course, never mind the fact that without Radio - the music industry would have likely sold considerably less music. Never mind that most people don't buy a CD if they haven't heard the music first.
The technology to deliver content on the web exists, for almost any media now. People know the potential of it and are annoyed that even customers who don't have a problem paying are restricted because of those that won't.
People have been duplicating Cassette Tapes and 8-Tracks since they had a record feature, it's nothing new. It's just that the duplication devices now are so much more powerful, but then so is a good content delivery system.
But also people are well aware that $15.00 for a CD with 15 songs is far more than can be expected considering the delivery system now as well.
Doesn't matter what the theory is - as long as the Media Industries are treating customers like the enemy, this problem will exist. Make it too difficult to deal with and people will just find something else to do. Life is difficult enough without 'entertainment' adding to it.
It's stated that: "“The legal theory we’re going on is one based in common law,” he said. “This is not a statutory claim….This is not a contract claim.”
In other words, the fact that the vast majority of Huffington Post’s 9,000 bloggers signed on without any expectation of direct monetary gain is irrelevant to this claim. “Rather, it’s the value contributed to the Huffington Post, which is very much amenable to class treatment,” says Strauss."
So they are not claiming there was a contract.
They are claiming that their articles 'add' to the overall valuation of the 'Huffington Post'.
Very subjective concept. Really, most news organizations, blog sites, and such really don't have 'value' in the articles - it's in their brand name.
Let's say a popular news outlet such as CNN lost 100% of their data/content/media. No old news stories, not a single shred of text left.
Would CNN still have 'market value'?
Of course, they could start rolling news articles tomorrow and people would watch - because they want to hear what CNN is reporting.
The news itself is inconsequential. A news site without a good name, could post billions of pages of 'news' - but if no one cares to hear what they say, the billions of pages aren't worth what the power to host them would be...
Reputation means everything in the news/blog business - too bad more companies don't realize that.
See - no matter how 'shocking' the news may be - if you don't trust the source, the 'news' is nothing more than babble. A tabloid is a good example - they don't sell 'news' - they sell 'entertainment'.
Again, that's purely subjective as to what's good and what's not.
See - they could delete every single post of this guy's and I bet AOL wouldn't change their offer, would they?
So is it really worth anything? Perhaps that's just what they should do.
Smart phones that could get to the web have existed longer than 2005 as seen in the above link. This is obviously outright abuse of the legal system. It they could get to the web - they obviously had to use IP - at least by proxy.
They also claim to be the 'inventors' - isn't that contempt of court, furnishing false information, fraud, and such as well?
Also, trial by jury? I'll bet nearly all of the jurors have phones provided by one of the companies listed in this suit. Is that a conflict of interest?
Indeed, as well as the plaintiff having such a device as well - I would suspect.
In summary: No such torrent. Was released by scene group, nobody cared. No 100,000 downloads.
Yep.
And too bad for the band - In reality.
I'll submit another question to people in general, the band, the music industry.. Answer to yourself - honestly.
**How many CD's do you own that are 'random purchases' - ones purchased without *ever* hearing the song or band before?**
Honestly now.. :) Don't need to answer here - just think about it.
My answer is maybe out of my 200+ CD's... maybe 2. And trust me they were 'next to nothing' in cost, like a buck or two.
Don't worry - even for free... I don't want it, lol.
See.. some people need to GET A FOOKING CLUE...
Music.. has been FREE on the Radio (as far as a 'user' is concerned) since like 1930 or thereabout.
There has been PLENTY of profit in it, despite that fact.
Prior to radio - a musician, by and large couldn't make a living - even if they were good.
The real problem isn't the artists or the downloaders, it's an age old business model that new technology has made OBSOLETE - doesn't matter if bands, band managers, record companies or any of that like it - it's a fact.
But I digress.
Would anyone who thinks the internet is killing the music business care to explain how NetFlix is running almost all other movie business into the ground when I can download movies for free too?
I can download movies for free, yet I pay a lot for cable each month - I pay for all the movie channels available.
And you know what - I pay for CD's too, if they aren't 90% 'b-side' garbage, anyway. But then you know - I wouldn't pay for a movie/show series if I only cared for 10% either now, would I?
It has to be a 'fair deal' - an audio CD with 2 good songs on it for $15.00 is anything BUT a good deal.
Who do they claim to represent and how would you know?
I can't find a list on their web page..
So is this 'license' just a 'general' - listen to music at work license?
If it is - then many, many artists will have a clear case to sue this organization, after all - if they provide a license for music *they do not own* - that's clearly copyright fraud.
I know if I was a musician and they - for one second - claimed to represent me, they'd be in court.
"You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane"*
So maybe they should be spending this money making sure less planes crash instead of buying their scanners and employing more feelers.
"You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack"
Can I get a TSA agent to come inspect my bed for safety hazards before i sleep? Maybe they could make sure I am in the proper mental and physical state to sleep too, for my safety.
"You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack" Can we get some gov agents near every body of water and faucet please!
And you are probably 40,000 times more likely to die in a car accident than any of those... easily.
We've seen, for example, that the record labels are not happy about these services
They aren't happy with anything that makes listening to music easier for consumers. If it was up to them, we'd still be spinning 33.3 RPM records that wore out in a year or two.
On the post: Is The FDA Helping Or Hindering Medical Innovation?
On the post: Why Does The Entertainment Industry Seek To Kill Any Innovation That's Helping It Adapt?
Odd - by some logic, they should not have survived.
Of course, never mind the fact that without Radio - the music industry would have likely sold considerably less music. Never mind that most people don't buy a CD if they haven't heard the music first.
The technology to deliver content on the web exists, for almost any media now. People know the potential of it and are annoyed that even customers who don't have a problem paying are restricted because of those that won't.
People have been duplicating Cassette Tapes and 8-Tracks since they had a record feature, it's nothing new. It's just that the duplication devices now are so much more powerful, but then so is a good content delivery system.
But also people are well aware that $15.00 for a CD with 15 songs is far more than can be expected considering the delivery system now as well.
Doesn't matter what the theory is - as long as the Media Industries are treating customers like the enemy, this problem will exist. Make it too difficult to deal with and people will just find something else to do. Life is difficult enough without 'entertainment' adding to it.
On the post: Dumbest Lawsuit Ever? HuffPo Sued By Bloggers Who Agreed To Work For Free... But Now Claim They Were Slaves
It's stated that: "“The legal theory we’re going on is one based in common law,” he said. “This is not a statutory claim….This is not a contract claim.”
In other words, the fact that the vast majority of Huffington Post’s 9,000 bloggers signed on without any expectation of direct monetary gain is irrelevant to this claim. “Rather, it’s the value contributed to the Huffington Post, which is very much amenable to class treatment,” says Strauss."
So they are not claiming there was a contract.
They are claiming that their articles 'add' to the overall valuation of the 'Huffington Post'.
Very subjective concept. Really, most news organizations, blog sites, and such really don't have 'value' in the articles - it's in their brand name.
Let's say a popular news outlet such as CNN lost 100% of their data/content/media. No old news stories, not a single shred of text left.
Would CNN still have 'market value'?
Of course, they could start rolling news articles tomorrow and people would watch - because they want to hear what CNN is reporting.
The news itself is inconsequential. A news site without a good name, could post billions of pages of 'news' - but if no one cares to hear what they say, the billions of pages aren't worth what the power to host them would be...
Reputation means everything in the news/blog business - too bad more companies don't realize that.
See - no matter how 'shocking' the news may be - if you don't trust the source, the 'news' is nothing more than babble. A tabloid is a good example - they don't sell 'news' - they sell 'entertainment'.
Again, that's purely subjective as to what's good and what's not.
See - they could delete every single post of this guy's and I bet AOL wouldn't change their offer, would they?
So is it really worth anything? Perhaps that's just what they should do.
On the post: SF Entertainment Commission Says Attending Any Gathering Of 100 Or More People Means You Lose All Privacy Rights
On the post: SF Entertainment Commission Says Attending Any Gathering Of 100 Or More People Means You Lose All Privacy Rights
On the post: Is Tethering Stealing Bandwidth?
On the post: Phone That Can Search The Internet & Display Ads Patented; Everyone Sued
http://blog.brightcove.com/en/2009/03/first-internet-phone-circa-1996
Smart phones that could get to the web have existed longer than 2005 as seen in the above link. This is obviously outright abuse of the legal system. It they could get to the web - they obviously had to use IP - at least by proxy.
They also claim to be the 'inventors' - isn't that contempt of court, furnishing false information, fraud, and such as well?
On the post: Phone That Can Search The Internet & Display Ads Patented; Everyone Sued
Indeed, as well as the plaintiff having such a device as well - I would suspect.
On the post: Senator Leahy Ignores Serious First Amendment Concerns With COICA
On the post: Record Labels May Owe Artists Close To $2 Billion; Lawsuits Ramp Up With Rick James In The Lead
On the post: Once Again, Court Says Homeland Security Is Free To Seize & Search Your Computer Without A Warrant At The Border
Now we seem to be just the subjects of a tyrannical government.
Funny how politics moves backwards isn't it? Soon, our political climate will be that of the 14th century again.
On the post: As Expected, MPAA Sues Movie Streaming Site That Uses Connected DVD Players
A whole new industry that does movies and then lets people use and watch them with current technology as they see fit.
Now I'd pay for that. That might actually get me interested in watching movies again.
but alas, this crap is getting old. I can live without Movies. I've found some serious deals at Borders with them going out of business.
You know the more I step away from the TV, the more I realize... I don't really miss it.
On the post: Band Complains About Massive Downloads Destroying Sales; Researchers Can't Find Any Downloads
Yep.
And too bad for the band - In reality.
I'll submit another question to people in general, the band, the music industry.. Answer to yourself - honestly.
**How many CD's do you own that are 'random purchases' - ones purchased without *ever* hearing the song or band before?**
Honestly now.. :) Don't need to answer here - just think about it.
My answer is maybe out of my 200+ CD's... maybe 2. And trust me they were 'next to nothing' in cost, like a buck or two.
On the post: Band Complains About Massive Downloads Destroying Sales; Researchers Can't Find Any Downloads
See.. some people need to GET A FOOKING CLUE...
Music.. has been FREE on the Radio (as far as a 'user' is concerned) since like 1930 or thereabout.
There has been PLENTY of profit in it, despite that fact.
Prior to radio - a musician, by and large couldn't make a living - even if they were good.
The real problem isn't the artists or the downloaders, it's an age old business model that new technology has made OBSOLETE - doesn't matter if bands, band managers, record companies or any of that like it - it's a fact.
But I digress.
Would anyone who thinks the internet is killing the music business care to explain how NetFlix is running almost all other movie business into the ground when I can download movies for free too?
I can download movies for free, yet I pay a lot for cable each month - I pay for all the movie channels available.
And you know what - I pay for CD's too, if they aren't 90% 'b-side' garbage, anyway. But then you know - I wouldn't pay for a movie/show series if I only cared for 10% either now, would I?
It has to be a 'fair deal' - an audio CD with 2 good songs on it for $15.00 is anything BUT a good deal.
On the post: Truck Drivers Told They Need To Pay A Licensing Fee To Listen To Music While Driving
I can't find a list on their web page..
So is this 'license' just a 'general' - listen to music at work license?
If it is - then many, many artists will have a clear case to sue this organization, after all - if they provide a license for music *they do not own* - that's clearly copyright fraud.
I know if I was a musician and they - for one second - claimed to represent me, they'd be in court.
On the post: Want To Grope People At Random In Airports (Not Just At Security)? Join The TSA!
So maybe they should be spending this money making sure less planes crash instead of buying their scanners and employing more feelers.
"You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack"
Can I get a TSA agent to come inspect my bed for safety hazards before i sleep? Maybe they could make sure I am in the proper mental and physical state to sleep too, for my safety.
"You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack" Can we get some gov agents near every body of water and faucet please!
And you are probably 40,000 times more likely to die in a car accident than any of those... easily.
On the post: Want To Grope People At Random In Airports (Not Just At Security)? Join The TSA!
Yes indeed.
I'd rather live with any amount of 'issues' as long as my rights are intact. Rights trump all.
On the post: Federal Courts Afraid Your Smartphone Might Be A Bomb
On the post: Amazon Launches Digital Music Locker, Even As Legality Is Still In Question
On the post: Amazon Launches Digital Music Locker, Even As Legality Is Still In Question
They aren't happy with anything that makes listening to music easier for consumers. If it was up to them, we'd still be spinning 33.3 RPM records that wore out in a year or two.
Next >>