Bell has done it in Canada, and the only people moaning are big torrent traders, and people attempting to replace their cable TV with 24 hour per day IPtv. For the rest of us, we all come in under their limits without issue.
I suspect that at some point they will once again offer an unlimited plan, and that plan will be priced well above market.
If you are using that much bandwidth, pay for it. How tough is that to understand?
DJ earworm's video above is absolutely horrible, it's all the worst parts of pop music tossed through an auto-tune with a generic crap beat over the top.
His only talent is in selecting samples, but even then.. it is so buried in autotune that he could select crap and it would all still go together.
If this is what the fair use people are fighting for, they better put down their crack pipes and get some help.
Most amusing of all, he argues that "artificial scarcities... allow the economy to function." He even admits that they are artificial scarcities, but still thinks they're a good thing. Again, this seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. It's hard to talk logically to someone who thinks that having less of a resource is somehow good for the economy.
yet the whole "lotttttts of t-shirts" thing is entirely dependant on artificial scarcity (limiting production to create scarcity where it would be easy to produce enough for the entire market). So apparently it is good for your economy, but not suppose to be good for his?
The only difference in the end is that the CwF thing is suppose to create a "moral copyright" on the t-shirts and things. They are only as scarce as you make them. Bands selling $50 t-shirts are really just selling $5 t-shirts with a huge moral upsell.
People will pay more for official because they think they are getting something better or getting on the inside. At some point, they will realize that they are getting nothing more than the guy who bought his band shirt for $5 at a flea market, and that official t-shirt business pretty much goes to crap.
What happens then? The people selling the official t-shirts launch lawsuits against the people who are duplicating them without a license, claiming copyright... you can almost smell it in the air already.
The problem is that someone or some organization has become so used to relying on copyright as a crutch to provide them with a business model that they fail to realize they don't need crutches to walk
Copyright isn't a crutch, it's one of the legs of the chair.
By your own posts here Mike, you know that commercial licensing fees are up all over the world. and that commercial (non-consumer) spending appears to be about the only area that is showing net gain (consumer spending is flat, moving from recorded to live music). If I remember correctly, licensing is more than 25% of the total music industry revenue in the UK last year.
I think you need to turn it around. The samplers and re-mixers working without permission need to re-examine their business models (or lack of one). They need to work with content they are permitted to work from, or make their own. Their business model fails, because it depends on taking other people's music as raw material. In any business, you should expect to pay for your raw materials.
The entire conference makes me think that even the most ardent "fair use" people don't have a clue what fair use is.
Considering that Google is in deep pooh over digitizing books without permission, and that this is very much at the top of the pile, I think they may have chosen this moment to bury the news:
I also think that Google has come to realize that their "network" isn't safe or secure in China, that hackers including government sanctioned hackers (usually regional governments, not Beijing) will attempt to access private information, figure out who users are, etc.
My feeling is that Google will find itself blocked off fairly quickly, their .cn domain revoked, put on hold, or redirected. It's one of those rare times when they don't seem to realize what they are truly up against.
In related news, shares of Chinese search engine Baidu are way up following this news, it appears that many are betting that Google will be out of the Chinese market.
Suzanne, no matter what you say, Mike will not agree with you.
Mike admits here (but doesn't often) that CwF and RtB are just "expose the public to your product" and "make a value proposition" or "market your distinctiveness". There is much humor in realize that all we are doing is giving a Y2K fancy name to the stuff that they teach even in very basic marketing classes.
It's sort of like the old punk "Here's three chords. Now form a band.". The result is much sound and fury, and not much else. People here hold out the suggestion of a promise of "garage band makes it big on the internet", forgetting that massive influx of unknown and unsigned bands to the net is just creating a level of noise that isn't giving many of them a change to CwF, because nobody is noticing them in a sea of other garage bands.
What's old is new again, history repeats. Those who appear to be gurus are the ones that noticed a nuance in the cycle (there is always one) and are riding it to the bank (or a series of music conferences this month).
Actually, it touches a major problem: they will pay for it, and are only NOT paying for things because they feel no need to do so.
I suspect that these people, if put in the position to actually have to pay for all the music the "own" would suddenly become much more selective in the music they "own".
The other issue is that no matter how good the product is today, they won't buy it tomorrow, but will expect something even better tomorrow, the day after, they will refuse to pay for that as well.
The RtB is transient. the reason to download it for free and not give a damn is as ingrained as "snitches get stitches", and just as self defeating.
I am suspecting that most of the business models will start with "we give something digtial away, preferably someone else's thing we didn't have to pay for.... ".
It's the business equivalent of "it was a dark and stormy night" ;)
Go read the story in french - the logo was created by Plan Créatif, a third part design company. I would suspect that, like many organizations, Hadopi was not aware that they needed not only to register the logo, but to assure rights of the underlying font(s) used. It would appear to be an error by Plan Créatif, or a misrepresentation.
It's a fail, but certainly Hadopi didn't pirate anything themselves.
Except for one simple problem: I offered no evidence, just an opinion. When I say today that "infamous joe is a fool" I am making an affirmative statement, which has not been entirely proven to be true all the time (waffling I go!).
Over time, I can continue to make the same (somewhat) false statement, act like it's fact, and sooner or later, most people take it as fact.
I suspect (no proof offered) that many of the readers of a given post on this site might mistake some of these opinions for fact, as they are presented in other posts. Mike certainly would have the stats to show how many people actually click the links to read those underlying stories. Sadly, those stories often have underlying story links as well, which means you need to read the entire site to separate fact from opinion.
First, the title is misleading, because they didn't pirate a font. The firm they used to make the logo used a font they don't have the rights for, but hadopi or whatever their name is didn't pirate a font. Very misleading, to say they pirated something is extremely misleading.
Second, and just as important, the font they used wasn't EXACTLY the font in question (called bienvenue, or welcome), as the letters were not exactly the same, but close enough to be recognized. It gives more credence to the idea of a font from a free font site or something similar.
It would be much more helpful if you can read french, as the story in french is significantly different from the rather slanted "ding" post from torrent freak. By taking their bias and adding your own onto it Mike, you make it sound like the Hadopi people hacked into someone computer to steal something, which just isn't the case.
Actually, what it proves is that someone, somewhere felt that they could duplicated the french telecom font, and give it away on their "free fonts license free fonts" site.
Essentially, they are victims of fraud, not copyright infringers. They are not different from someone telling them the car they just bought was actually stolen. They aren't the thieves, just another victim.
It isn't the link by itself, it's the reference to an opinion as if it fact.
If I post here "I think IMfamous Joe is a fool" and then tomorrow post a link in another thread that says "we were just discussing yesterday that Imfamous Joe is a fool",what I have done is promote my opinion to a "fact", when it is really still an opinion.
Worse, a few months later, I reference the second thread, and say, "look another post by that well known fool joe".
That is bootstrapping, taking opinion and turning it into fact. It's the "lead to gold" techdirt process :)
I can take that design of the t-shirt, and go have a million more made and sell them into the market, effectively making it so they are about as scarce as republicans at a bible college. The true scarcity is artificial, a decision by someone to produce a limited number.
Yes, I know the "technical" difference between infinite and scarce, but my point is that most of the scarcities are artificial. heck, Mike's CwF experiment is a perfect example, artificially limited the number of shirts made to create scarcity where there is no need to have one. He could have printed 1000 more shirts (probably for not much more money either!) and sold them endlessly. But his plan doesn't work without creating artificial scarcity, otherwise he wouldn't be able to sell $10 t-shirts for $40 or whatever it was.
Artificial scarcity is just you being mislead into thinking something has more value than it really does.
In the times of Bach and others, the entire system was different. Most artists had "patrons" who paid their way, and sadly their music and their skills were often kept to the elite. The closest match to today would be "work for hire", or something similar. They were in a position to be entirely creative because they didn't have to worry about actually making enough money to eat. In some ways, they are in the same position as a Trent Reznor or Bono. The means by which it happens is different, but the end results are the same.
New ideas come out in all sorts of ways, often from unlikely sources. But much of the new developments require investment and time, and often that expense would limit people's ability to work on new ideas without a system that allows for a potential return on that investment of time and money.
I am sure as a musician that you would appreciate being able to choose if your music is used for, I dunno, an anti-abortion commercial or as music for a girls gone wild video (two ends of the spectrum!). I am sure you would appreciate to get paid when someone else uses your work. That isn't about maximizing anything, just making sure you get some control and some return for your efforts.
On the post: As ISPs Look To Charge Per Byte... How Accurate Are Their Meters?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I suspect that at some point they will once again offer an unlimited plan, and that plan will be priced well above market.
If you are using that much bandwidth, pay for it. How tough is that to understand?
On the post: World Fair Use Day Wrapup
Re:
DJ earworm's video above is absolutely horrible, it's all the worst parts of pop music tossed through an auto-tune with a generic crap beat over the top.
His only talent is in selecting samples, but even then.. it is so buried in autotune that he could select crap and it would all still go together.
If this is what the fair use people are fighting for, they better put down their crack pipes and get some help.
On the post: Jaron Lanier Gets Old And Crotchety; Maybe He Should Kick Those Kids Off His Virtual Reality Lawn
yet the whole "lotttttts of t-shirts" thing is entirely dependant on artificial scarcity (limiting production to create scarcity where it would be easy to produce enough for the entire market). So apparently it is good for your economy, but not suppose to be good for his?
On the post: Connect With Fans + Reason To Buy; The Contest
Re:
People will pay more for official because they think they are getting something better or getting on the inside. At some point, they will realize that they are getting nothing more than the guy who bought his band shirt for $5 at a flea market, and that official t-shirt business pretty much goes to crap.
What happens then? The people selling the official t-shirts launch lawsuits against the people who are duplicating them without a license, claiming copyright... you can almost smell it in the air already.
On the post: World Fair Use Day Wrapup
Copyright isn't a crutch, it's one of the legs of the chair.
By your own posts here Mike, you know that commercial licensing fees are up all over the world. and that commercial (non-consumer) spending appears to be about the only area that is showing net gain (consumer spending is flat, moving from recorded to live music). If I remember correctly, licensing is more than 25% of the total music industry revenue in the UK last year.
I think you need to turn it around. The samplers and re-mixers working without permission need to re-examine their business models (or lack of one). They need to work with content they are permitted to work from, or make their own. Their business model fails, because it depends on taking other people's music as raw material. In any business, you should expect to pay for your raw materials.
The entire conference makes me think that even the most ardent "fair use" people don't have a clue what fair use is.
On the post: Google Considers Leaving China If China Will Not Allow Uncensored Search
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2010-01/13/content_9311576.htm
I also think that Google has come to realize that their "network" isn't safe or secure in China, that hackers including government sanctioned hackers (usually regional governments, not Beijing) will attempt to access private information, figure out who users are, etc.
My feeling is that Google will find itself blocked off fairly quickly, their .cn domain revoked, put on hold, or redirected. It's one of those rare times when they don't seem to realize what they are truly up against.
In related news, shares of Chinese search engine Baidu are way up following this news, it appears that many are betting that Google will be out of the Chinese market.
On the post: Connect With Fans + Reason To Buy; The Contest
Re: Re:
Mike admits here (but doesn't often) that CwF and RtB are just "expose the public to your product" and "make a value proposition" or "market your distinctiveness". There is much humor in realize that all we are doing is giving a Y2K fancy name to the stuff that they teach even in very basic marketing classes.
It's sort of like the old punk "Here's three chords. Now form a band.". The result is much sound and fury, and not much else. People here hold out the suggestion of a promise of "garage band makes it big on the internet", forgetting that massive influx of unknown and unsigned bands to the net is just creating a level of noise that isn't giving many of them a change to CwF, because nobody is noticing them in a sea of other garage bands.
What's old is new again, history repeats. Those who appear to be gurus are the ones that noticed a nuance in the cycle (there is always one) and are riding it to the bank (or a series of music conferences this month).
On the post: France's Three Strikes Enforcement Agency... Pirated A Font For Its Logo
Re: TAM the amazing TAMHOLE
Too bad your post just doesn't have any relevance, except a pretty pathetic attempt to twist words into your favor.
On the post: Fair Use And Films: Does Running Everything By The Lawyers Really Improve Your Film?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I suspect that these people, if put in the position to actually have to pay for all the music the "own" would suddenly become much more selective in the music they "own".
The other issue is that no matter how good the product is today, they won't buy it tomorrow, but will expect something even better tomorrow, the day after, they will refuse to pay for that as well.
The RtB is transient. the reason to download it for free and not give a damn is as ingrained as "snitches get stitches", and just as self defeating.
On the post: Connect With Fans + Reason To Buy; The Contest
It's the business equivalent of "it was a dark and stormy night" ;)
On the post: Reading Between The Still Secret Lines Of The ACTA Negotiations
Re: Re: Not a worry for criminals
When they make better stuff, you will buy some of it, pirate the rest of it, and tell them you won't buy any more until they make better stuff again.
It's an excuse, not a reason.
On the post: France's Three Strikes Enforcement Agency... Pirated A Font For Its Logo
Re: Re:
It's a fail, but certainly Hadopi didn't pirate anything themselves.
On the post: Fair Use And Films: Does Running Everything By The Lawyers Really Improve Your Film?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Over time, I can continue to make the same (somewhat) false statement, act like it's fact, and sooner or later, most people take it as fact.
I suspect (no proof offered) that many of the readers of a given post on this site might mistake some of these opinions for fact, as they are presented in other posts. Mike certainly would have the stats to show how many people actually click the links to read those underlying stories. Sadly, those stories often have underlying story links as well, which means you need to read the entire site to separate fact from opinion.
On the post: France's Three Strikes Enforcement Agency... Pirated A Font For Its Logo
Re:
First, the title is misleading, because they didn't pirate a font. The firm they used to make the logo used a font they don't have the rights for, but hadopi or whatever their name is didn't pirate a font. Very misleading, to say they pirated something is extremely misleading.
Second, and just as important, the font they used wasn't EXACTLY the font in question (called bienvenue, or welcome), as the letters were not exactly the same, but close enough to be recognized. It gives more credence to the idea of a font from a free font site or something similar.
It would be much more helpful if you can read french, as the story in french is significantly different from the rather slanted "ding" post from torrent freak. By taking their bias and adding your own onto it Mike, you make it sound like the Hadopi people hacked into someone computer to steal something, which just isn't the case.
On the post: France's Three Strikes Enforcement Agency... Pirated A Font For Its Logo
Essentially, they are victims of fraud, not copyright infringers. They are not different from someone telling them the car they just bought was actually stolen. They aren't the thieves, just another victim.
On the post: Reading Between The Still Secret Lines Of The ACTA Negotiations
Re: Re:
FOAD.
On the post: Fair Use And Films: Does Running Everything By The Lawyers Really Improve Your Film?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I post here "I think IMfamous Joe is a fool" and then tomorrow post a link in another thread that says "we were just discussing yesterday that Imfamous Joe is a fool",what I have done is promote my opinion to a "fact", when it is really still an opinion.
Worse, a few months later, I reference the second thread, and say, "look another post by that well known fool joe".
That is bootstrapping, taking opinion and turning it into fact. It's the "lead to gold" techdirt process :)
On the post: Grooveshark Sued Again... Negotiating Via Lawsuit Continues
Re: Re: Re: You ripe what you saw.
Second, think of how popular music sites would be if none of the music on them is known by anyone.
Call me back when you realize what would happen.
On the post: Growth Of Music Digital Sales Is Slowing Down
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I know the "technical" difference between infinite and scarce, but my point is that most of the scarcities are artificial. heck, Mike's CwF experiment is a perfect example, artificially limited the number of shirts made to create scarcity where there is no need to have one. He could have printed 1000 more shirts (probably for not much more money either!) and sold them endlessly. But his plan doesn't work without creating artificial scarcity, otherwise he wouldn't be able to sell $10 t-shirts for $40 or whatever it was.
Artificial scarcity is just you being mislead into thinking something has more value than it really does.
On the post: IP Lawyer: If You Are Against Software Patents, You Are Against Innovation
Re: Re:
In the times of Bach and others, the entire system was different. Most artists had "patrons" who paid their way, and sadly their music and their skills were often kept to the elite. The closest match to today would be "work for hire", or something similar. They were in a position to be entirely creative because they didn't have to worry about actually making enough money to eat. In some ways, they are in the same position as a Trent Reznor or Bono. The means by which it happens is different, but the end results are the same.
New ideas come out in all sorts of ways, often from unlikely sources. But much of the new developments require investment and time, and often that expense would limit people's ability to work on new ideas without a system that allows for a potential return on that investment of time and money.
I am sure as a musician that you would appreciate being able to choose if your music is used for, I dunno, an anti-abortion commercial or as music for a girls gone wild video (two ends of the spectrum!). I am sure you would appreciate to get paid when someone else uses your work. That isn't about maximizing anything, just making sure you get some control and some return for your efforts.
Next >>