As we're talking about the *AA's here just what service, exactly, are they providing? The make product, which is how they view it in stark contrast to how they viewed it when they were getting started and established.
All Mike's pointing out is that if you have a monopoly there's no incentive to bargain sale prices. In fact, there may frequently be the opposite.
The *AA's don't care if Spotify continues to exist. They assume that if it dies something and someone they can deal with will come along to replace it.
And they don't have to deal with Steve Jobs anymore so they don't have to deal with someone out of their league.
A moral issue or stealing as it would be defined by Christianity?
I don't think it's either. Otherwise we'd be accusing the writers of the synoptic Gospels of the same thing!
The limitation is what's immoral as it prevents you using technology to do what it does best which is copy and share. Particularly as you have no intention of ever purchasing a second copy, physical or otherwise. Nor do you ever say that you're going to put the copy on the Internet anywhere for sharing so the "piracy" angle won't work because you're not causing the author or publisher to lose a real or imagined penny.
For the life of me I can't imagine a moral issue in what you've done. All you've done is to make a copy so that you and your wife and read the book together and talk about it as you do increasing your enjoyment and insight into the book. To me this increases the chances of your hanging in for the full trilogy of films as well as purchasing further works by the same author.
Exactly. You're a pirate and you have now caused ripple effects that will span this and all parallel universes that will rebound on the publishers at 140 million times light speed in economic damage.
You, sir, are not Hitler as you've been compared to above, you're far, far, far worse. You're BLACKBEARD!!!! ;-)
"As Tom Petty says, just pick up that guitar and learn how to play."
Actually, that was the Byrds many moons ago who first released that song and did a much better job at it than Tom Petty did. (I do like Petty a lot just that Roger McGuinn was/is a much better guitarst and The Byrds did great harmony!)
Maya is one of the innocents caught in this over enforcement of patents in the software field. I have no idea if the small company that made the app that your daughter and family now rely on so heavily to give her a voice searched to see if there was a patent in place on their idea/refinement or if they're now faced with something similar to one of those non-performing software patents that claims to do just about anything possible since the Big Bang.
I can't tell if the bigger companies made even a token attempt to negotiate with the smaller one or just hammered them with legal papers.
Though an example like this may not happen often, though more often that I know of, it does show the amorality of the knee jerk reaction to "defending" IP without considering the consequences. It's almost sociopathic in situations like this.
Patents are worth more than people, it seems. Particularly those with no voice, in this case quite literally.
I'd guess that for most of them the thought of that kind of lawsuit would get them to back off.
During last year's federal election up here in Canada one of the parties was demanding social media logins from it's candidates and the public backlash was immediate. Not to mention the tongue lashing they got from the federal privacy commissioner.
"Actually, I think of patent trolls as buyers in a dollar store out those fishing in the bargain clearance bins. They are often the buyers of last resort for many patent holders who either have never done anything with a patent, or have no idea what to do with it. The trolls pick them up, interpret them grandly, often file extensions or modifications on them to give them an even wider scope"
I don't entirely disagree with you here but there is no denying that they have blocked, if not new invention, then innovation.
"Patents in the end hinder those who want to be hindered, more than anything."
When you're stuck in a court of law defending yourself from a patent troll it's hard to say that the company defending itself if wanting to be hindered. For example say Blackberry.
The thing is that the original PC was made with "off the shelf" parts because IBM wanted to make/set a standard. Except for the BIOS they didn't patent or copyright anything all very deliberately. The only copyright they held was on the BIOS. Even the motherboard size and case form factor was set to be standardized so that IBM could source from anywhere.
None of that means that opening the case or working inside it, even to install an expansion card was easy. It wasn't.
Compaq, one of the original clone makers, was challenged, sued, for copyright infringement and had the balls to take it to court. They proved to the court that they had "clean room" reverse coded the BIOS, didn't violate IBM's copyright and the flood gates opened.
That the case form factor was a success is undeniable in that it's still used today in all desktops no matter the size of the case. The improvements you cite are refinements of the original form factor. Many by IBM itself before it exited the desktop market.
(Incidentally I'd argue that some of the "improvements" to the desktop form factor are actually worse than what we started out with.)
It was the move from ISA to MCA that caused IBM's disappearance from the desktop market as it was then it was IBM charged a license fee to clone makers because the held a patent on one or two peripheral portions of it. They applied for a patent for the MCA but it wasn't granted until the PCI was granted its. (I know you mentioned that but I thought I'd make things clearer for those reading along the order the patents were issued.) The group that developed the PCI bus then opened it up by allowing anyone to use it without paying a license fee. AMI did get to make the MCA BIOS but as you say there were lots of other players at the table.
The most important thing to remember is that the original IBM PC and every PC IBM released until they exited the market was, on the hardware side, essentially what we'd call open source. Part of the reason was economic because the "heavy iron" part of IBM weren't at all convinced that these small computers could be profitable or would ever amount to much and weren't prepared to fund a lot of the development. So the PC group standardized everything imaginable in order to get and attract providers for things like expansion cards and so on. In doing so they provided the specs for everything but the BIOS. The decision was deliberate. And the PC took the business world by storm dragging a small software company called Microsoft along with it.
The original leader of the PC Division either resigned or was pushed shortly before the MCA came along, if memory serves, when it was impossible for even the main framers to ignore the profitability of that division.
The desktop PC was as much a success as it was because it wasn't encumbered by lot of "intellectual property" (an unknown phrase at the time) that might have impeded it on the hardware side. Even considering that people on the supply chain in big companies knew that "no one ever got fired for buying IBM" and did, smaller companies bought clones which were less expensive.
And here we are today. With PCs more powerful than the mainframes that existed when they came on the scene. The result, in many ways, of the PC Division of IBM and it's essential openness brought us here, even if it lacks the sexiness of Apple products it's practical and does its job remarkably well.
Ahh, performing, creating new material the same way musicians were paid for millenia before the RIAA or copyright existed. It's actually the way most musicians get paid now if you want to look into it.
While I'm used to security clearances and background checks I'd have to say that I would pass on an employer who wanted to know my logins to social networking sites. For exactly the reasons you outline.
Just why they want to know is beyond me. Unless they want to be sure that I don't day anything horrible about them. Never mind that I have enough in the way of ethics not to in a public forum.
As long as what I do on my own time doesn't affect them it's none of their business. And I'm not stupid enough to log into facebook while at work. ;-)
"The thing is that it has nothing to do with "tech" in any sense. All businesses are about finding customers and satisfying them as best you can."
The problem isn't that you're both, in your own way stating the obvious but that some businesses tend to forget that statement which is a large part of the growing problem people have with the "content" industry who seem convinced that because they hold a copyright on something that they no longer need to pay attention to the second half of your second statement.
This happens with companies who have a near monopoly on some sector quite frequently. At one time IBM built PCs were the Rolls Royces of desktop machines and laptops. Then they decided to change a standard they set with the first PC and introduced the Microchannel system to add expansion cards to the motherboards and charging a large amount for other PC makers to use it effectively led to the creation of the PCI bus we have now. That was done by a combination of poor marketing on IBM's part and excessive fees on the portions of the MCA bus they held patents on. The rest of the industry rebelled and eventually the PCI was born.
Most, if not all of this could have been avoided had IBM marketed the bus downstream better to clone makers than they did and reduced the royalty requirements to use it. All of this led to 9 years of competing bus technologies in IBM class desktop machines and the simple fact that because of that prices stayed higher because of that confusion and competition between, in the end, two patented, bus designs. (Although the PCI bus is essentially free to use by downstream manufacturers and mother board makers.)
I do agree with you the first solution often isn't always the best and working around a patent has often led to improvements. Although, as I mentioned above, that isn't always the case in the short term. Or even the long term. PCI performance was on par with MCA and not significantly better.
The problem for people, many times, is even finding what patents may exist on something that works alike to what they're working on which can take an enormous amount of time and cost. The USPTO hasn't figured out simple things like cross-indexing to shorten that search in any way.
In the tech industry, since the forced introduction of patents, we have faced the problem of unqualified patent inspectors granting patents where enough prior art exists to make up the Rocky Mountains and more at least in part to pressure to grant as many patents as possible as that's the main way the USPTO stays funded. And then these questionable patents head off to non-performing companies that warehouse them and pull them out only to initiate court action. The infamous patent troll. I'd love to hear an explanation of how that is somehow good for the development and implementation of new ideas and processes in writing and distributing software (closed and open source). It's also a fiction that working around a patent to get a better product would have no incentive to get better ideas into the marketplace. Companies, developers and inventors would do it anyway. Largely because the last two cases are filled with creative people who will just do it and companies because they want to put out a better product.
The appearance of the patent troll is symptomatic of a system that is broken. And the fear of them is real even if most of the patents could be successfully challenged given enough time and money.
Both real estate and technology are about selling. Technology doesn't advance if a market doesn't develop for new applications that software and hardware companies can't sell or license in one form or another. In the end everyone needs an income.
I didn't read that for a moment in how these kids responded. They did, in fact, list a number of ways they could and would support the artists they liked. From attending concerts to donate buttons and more. They did seem to show a preference for removing the middle man from the game which isn't surprising it's understood that the artists actually make very little from their record companies, movie studios and book publishers they assign their copyrights to. Except for a very few.
And even then the artist's income is greater from concerts, book tours, readings and so on that it often is from sales or records, books etc.
I also read from them that if what they want isn't offered they'll find a way to get it. Much like we did recording LPs, mixing dance tapes, photocopying short pieces like essays and short stories and passing them around. The how is different and far easier but the principle is the same.
Though you don't want to believe it the reality was that the LP or book was most often purchased by the receiver if they ( or I) liked it when I could find it for sale.
If publishers, RIAA and MPAA members can't get it through their collective thick skulls that rolling or staggered releases through different national territories is old school marketing as the market is now global then they need to review what they're doing.
If, as the story points out that Manga publishers in Japan delay too long in translating their work into English then someone will do it for them. The market is global now. Not regional and often not rigidly divided into linguistic groups.
And while it makes sense to roll out movies in major, influential areas such as New York, LA and Chicago in the States or Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto in Canada to see how they'll do at the box office, the word of mouth and so on before committing to smaller areas once we're into releases of DVDs and so on it makes no sense at all. The market is global now.
The kids never said they wouldn't buy. But once something is released in a way where they can't purchase because of region, usually the biggest impediment, they'll find a way to get it. They understand that the market is global now.
Will they buy later? I haven't a clue. I suspect a significant number would but they may get fed up with the same pattern repeating over and over and over again without any reason in the retail sector they may not eventually.
One more point. IP maximalists also seem to be MSP maximalists. That is to say that the market hasn't got a choice but to pay price the maker puts on a good. If the price is too high the market (consumer) protests by not buying the product until it's sold a a price the market finds acceptable.
Music piracy began as a protest over RIAA member's refusals to release and sell singles so people ripped their CDs and did it on their own. Not the legal reaction from a copyright perspective but the rational one given that the format the market wanted wasn't otherwise available. And yes, the consumer (market) DOES get to set things like acceptable format and price.
The "content" industry can howl and complain all it wants. While most of us do want to support the artist it's apparent the *AA's don't because they refuse to sell in formats and pricing that the market will find acceptable.
There's not a thing immoral, illegal, an over abundance of entitlement or freetardy about that. That's was markets exist for.
Interesting story, that. I'd wondered why comic stores went from delightful places where I could find a wide variety of different stories, comix and things that didn't involve men with too many muscles even for steroids to explain and women who look like their surgeon had cornered the market on silicon. All in tights. All oddly sexless. Well genderless given how tight the tights are and how little actually shows in certain regions.
Of course, according to the IP maximalists monopoly is good because it encourages people to create.
Your link illustrates the exact opposite that monopolies suppress creation. At least quality creation. Just as DC and Marvel continue to re-create their men and women in tights so the RIAA and MPAA continue to recycle the same material over and over and over again under, if we're lucky, a slightly different name. If we're not lucky then it's Batman 33!
I have no idea why this got flagged because I don't see a thing there that's even mildy offensive. Unless the trolls thought it was so or unless this guy's a well known troll whose nick has escaped me for the moment.
As I recall the last time someone opened up a "law of the sea" debate to update and reform maritime law it took close to a decade to make much in the way of progress on it and some of the work remains incomplete to this day. Even the limits on territorial waters are unfinished which leads to the amusing situation of countries only able to claim a 200 (not 12) mile limit but a much broader economic zone which is often used for fisheries enforcement.
I'm not all that sure they'd have a hard time finding a state more friendly to their cause and business to act as a land station either. That being the case if State A opens fire on TPB's drones which are registered in State B; State B can consider this an act of war no matter what State A's excuses are. Hardly impunity.
And a precedent has been set. While pirate radio clearly broke the UK's right to regulate the public airwaves (grant a monopoly on spectrum) the Royal Navy never, to the best of my knowledge, never seized or sunk a pirate radio ship operating in international waters. So there is no need to change maritime law as this has already been settled by that example. At least as far as these things ever do get settled.
I had thought that Lohan's behaviour was and is bizarre enough all by itself. And as a recovering alcoholic and addict I'm often willing to give drug and booze induced behaviour a bit of a pass. Which is far from excusing it. (Or my own, if it comes to that, when I was out there or now.)
Now it seems to have infected her law firm.
This is proof positive that something affecting her is infectious and she needs to be kept away from the human population, at least the lawyer part of it who seem susceptible to this illness/insanity.
Now, let's return to the previously scheduled train wreck.
There's nothing here that isn't covered by fair use in the United States or fair dealing in Canada or the UK and similar concepts elsewhere.
Bear in mind that we do most of what's on that list already both on and off line and, until now, there's not been a wolf pack of lawyers circling us every time we're in a coffee shop, bar or in church discussing or talking about (and transforming) a work covered by copyright.
Not all copying is allowed or permitted under these proposals most notable "for profit" isn't covered. Also, remember that in few, if any, of these cases are there "true" (as in unchanged) verbatim copies made of an entire work only excerpts. Nor to all proposed uses affect only the "content" industry alone. Some apply to the software and IT business who in one form or another from open to closed source do this already.
Nor will any of this result, in my opinion in lost sales, but open paths to greater sales.
Then again, I know you're not going to buy that but I thought I'd waste my time anyway. ;-)
"I think musical acts "selling the scarce" with $500 concert tickets are doing much worse to alienate fans, but that is apparently okay by Mike."
If the acts fans are willing to pay that then why not? And acts that can collect that much for prime tickets also draw scalpers who double and triple those prices so the fans must be okay with it.
UFC seems to rely on it's PPV more than a lot of sports which may be why they're so protective of it. It seems to me, and others, though that suing your fans isn't exactly the right way to go to build and expand a business. I can't say I know the business at all as I'm not a fan but whatever infringement is occurring by a fan picking up a stream may be symptomatic of UFC overvaluing the worth of the PPV views, that it wasn't otherwise available to the people they're going to sue or a host of other reasons as outlined by Ben Fowlkes in the article Mike links to.
By the same token pissing off one fan results, particularly in this day and age is as good as pissing off 100. Suing a collection of them, well, that's not just going to piss them off so the multiplier will be much higher.
If UFC is as dependent on it's PPV feed as I understand it is this plan may just backfire. Big time. Perhaps not immediately but in the long term. It just doesn't add up particularly of they're still making money from the PPV regardless and to this point they haven't said they aren't.
Particularly when with one had they say they care about their fans and the other hand is signing affidavits that will form the basis of a collection of lawsuits.
It's just not something I like in terms of risk and reward. I'd rather find out why these fans felt the need to stream.
But that could just be me. Service oriented in the certainty of greater profit later.
He can even get it on MLS himself now too, at least in B.C.
And yes, like everything else to do with Real Estate the commission is negotiable. The agent I have working on selling my place was recommended and after working with him for a bit I can see why.
Like anything else, there are good and bad agents.
I don't see what the Toronto Real Estate Board complaining about when they provide the same information to prospective buyers that they now say is dangerous. Also, by their logic, having a For Sale sign on your house or condo is an invitation to a break in or worse. To follow through on that logic all the For Sale signs should come down pronto.
If you follow the link to the Globe and Mail story on this you'll find the Competition Board's answer to the attacks, all of which makes perfect sense to anyone but the Toronto Real Estate Board who've commissioned a poll on the issue, no doubt designed to get the answers they want to get and have gone on the offensive.
Attacks on realtors are usually high profile in the news media and it's been one heck of a long time since I've heard of one.
On the post: How Monopolies Strangle Innovation: Record Label Demands Making Investors Nervous About Spotify
Re:
All Mike's pointing out is that if you have a monopoly there's no incentive to bargain sale prices. In fact, there may frequently be the opposite.
The *AA's don't care if Spotify continues to exist. They assume that if it dies something and someone they can deal with will come along to replace it.
And they don't have to deal with Steve Jobs anymore so they don't have to deal with someone out of their league.
On the post: How Monopolies Strangle Innovation: Record Label Demands Making Investors Nervous About Spotify
Re: Re: Re: On a sorta related note
I don't think it's either. Otherwise we'd be accusing the writers of the synoptic Gospels of the same thing!
The limitation is what's immoral as it prevents you using technology to do what it does best which is copy and share. Particularly as you have no intention of ever purchasing a second copy, physical or otherwise. Nor do you ever say that you're going to put the copy on the Internet anywhere for sharing so the "piracy" angle won't work because you're not causing the author or publisher to lose a real or imagined penny.
For the life of me I can't imagine a moral issue in what you've done. All you've done is to make a copy so that you and your wife and read the book together and talk about it as you do increasing your enjoyment and insight into the book. To me this increases the chances of your hanging in for the full trilogy of films as well as purchasing further works by the same author.
On the post: How Monopolies Strangle Innovation: Record Label Demands Making Investors Nervous About Spotify
Re: Re: Re: Re: On a sorta related note
You, sir, are not Hitler as you've been compared to above, you're far, far, far worse. You're BLACKBEARD!!!! ;-)
On the post: How Monopolies Strangle Innovation: Record Label Demands Making Investors Nervous About Spotify
Re: Monopoly? Nah
Actually, that was the Byrds many moons ago who first released that song and did a much better job at it than Tom Petty did. (I do like Petty a lot just that Roger McGuinn was/is a much better guitarst and The Byrds did great harmony!)
On the post: How ASCAP Takes Money From Successful Indie Artists And Gives It To Giant Rock Stars
Re:
On the post: Is Getting Sued For Patent Infringement The Equivalent Of Frat Hazing For A Growing Tech Company?
Re:
I can't tell if the bigger companies made even a token attempt to negotiate with the smaller one or just hammered them with legal papers.
Though an example like this may not happen often, though more often that I know of, it does show the amorality of the knee jerk reaction to "defending" IP without considering the consequences. It's almost sociopathic in situations like this.
Patents are worth more than people, it seems. Particularly those with no voice, in this case quite literally.
On the post: David Muir's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re:
During last year's federal election up here in Canada one of the parties was demanding social media logins from it's candidates and the public backlash was immediate. Not to mention the tongue lashing they got from the federal privacy commissioner.
On the post: David Muir's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re:
I don't entirely disagree with you here but there is no denying that they have blocked, if not new invention, then innovation.
"Patents in the end hinder those who want to be hindered, more than anything."
When you're stuck in a court of law defending yourself from a patent troll it's hard to say that the company defending itself if wanting to be hindered. For example say Blackberry.
The thing is that the original PC was made with "off the shelf" parts because IBM wanted to make/set a standard. Except for the BIOS they didn't patent or copyright anything all very deliberately. The only copyright they held was on the BIOS. Even the motherboard size and case form factor was set to be standardized so that IBM could source from anywhere.
None of that means that opening the case or working inside it, even to install an expansion card was easy. It wasn't.
Compaq, one of the original clone makers, was challenged, sued, for copyright infringement and had the balls to take it to court. They proved to the court that they had "clean room" reverse coded the BIOS, didn't violate IBM's copyright and the flood gates opened.
That the case form factor was a success is undeniable in that it's still used today in all desktops no matter the size of the case. The improvements you cite are refinements of the original form factor. Many by IBM itself before it exited the desktop market.
(Incidentally I'd argue that some of the "improvements" to the desktop form factor are actually worse than what we started out with.)
It was the move from ISA to MCA that caused IBM's disappearance from the desktop market as it was then it was IBM charged a license fee to clone makers because the held a patent on one or two peripheral portions of it. They applied for a patent for the MCA but it wasn't granted until the PCI was granted its. (I know you mentioned that but I thought I'd make things clearer for those reading along the order the patents were issued.) The group that developed the PCI bus then opened it up by allowing anyone to use it without paying a license fee. AMI did get to make the MCA BIOS but as you say there were lots of other players at the table.
The most important thing to remember is that the original IBM PC and every PC IBM released until they exited the market was, on the hardware side, essentially what we'd call open source. Part of the reason was economic because the "heavy iron" part of IBM weren't at all convinced that these small computers could be profitable or would ever amount to much and weren't prepared to fund a lot of the development. So the PC group standardized everything imaginable in order to get and attract providers for things like expansion cards and so on. In doing so they provided the specs for everything but the BIOS. The decision was deliberate. And the PC took the business world by storm dragging a small software company called Microsoft along with it.
The original leader of the PC Division either resigned or was pushed shortly before the MCA came along, if memory serves, when it was impossible for even the main framers to ignore the profitability of that division.
The desktop PC was as much a success as it was because it wasn't encumbered by lot of "intellectual property" (an unknown phrase at the time) that might have impeded it on the hardware side. Even considering that people on the supply chain in big companies knew that "no one ever got fired for buying IBM" and did, smaller companies bought clones which were less expensive.
And here we are today. With PCs more powerful than the mainframes that existed when they came on the scene. The result, in many ways, of the PC Division of IBM and it's essential openness brought us here, even if it lacks the sexiness of Apple products it's practical and does its job remarkably well.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
On the post: David Muir's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
Just why they want to know is beyond me. Unless they want to be sure that I don't day anything horrible about them. Never mind that I have enough in the way of ethics not to in a public forum.
As long as what I do on my own time doesn't affect them it's none of their business. And I'm not stupid enough to log into facebook while at work. ;-)
On the post: David Muir's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
The problem isn't that you're both, in your own way stating the obvious but that some businesses tend to forget that statement which is a large part of the growing problem people have with the "content" industry who seem convinced that because they hold a copyright on something that they no longer need to pay attention to the second half of your second statement.
This happens with companies who have a near monopoly on some sector quite frequently. At one time IBM built PCs were the Rolls Royces of desktop machines and laptops. Then they decided to change a standard they set with the first PC and introduced the Microchannel system to add expansion cards to the motherboards and charging a large amount for other PC makers to use it effectively led to the creation of the PCI bus we have now. That was done by a combination of poor marketing on IBM's part and excessive fees on the portions of the MCA bus they held patents on. The rest of the industry rebelled and eventually the PCI was born.
Most, if not all of this could have been avoided had IBM marketed the bus downstream better to clone makers than they did and reduced the royalty requirements to use it. All of this led to 9 years of competing bus technologies in IBM class desktop machines and the simple fact that because of that prices stayed higher because of that confusion and competition between, in the end, two patented, bus designs. (Although the PCI bus is essentially free to use by downstream manufacturers and mother board makers.)
I do agree with you the first solution often isn't always the best and working around a patent has often led to improvements. Although, as I mentioned above, that isn't always the case in the short term. Or even the long term. PCI performance was on par with MCA and not significantly better.
The problem for people, many times, is even finding what patents may exist on something that works alike to what they're working on which can take an enormous amount of time and cost. The USPTO hasn't figured out simple things like cross-indexing to shorten that search in any way.
In the tech industry, since the forced introduction of patents, we have faced the problem of unqualified patent inspectors granting patents where enough prior art exists to make up the Rocky Mountains and more at least in part to pressure to grant as many patents as possible as that's the main way the USPTO stays funded. And then these questionable patents head off to non-performing companies that warehouse them and pull them out only to initiate court action. The infamous patent troll. I'd love to hear an explanation of how that is somehow good for the development and implementation of new ideas and processes in writing and distributing software (closed and open source). It's also a fiction that working around a patent to get a better product would have no incentive to get better ideas into the marketplace. Companies, developers and inventors would do it anyway. Largely because the last two cases are filled with creative people who will just do it and companies because they want to put out a better product.
The appearance of the patent troll is symptomatic of a system that is broken. And the fear of them is real even if most of the patents could be successfully challenged given enough time and money.
Both real estate and technology are about selling. Technology doesn't advance if a market doesn't develop for new applications that software and hardware companies can't sell or license in one form or another. In the end everyone needs an income.
Except patent troll! ;-)
On the post: We Don't Want Everything For Free. We Just Want Everything
Re: Re: Re:
And even then the artist's income is greater from concerts, book tours, readings and so on that it often is from sales or records, books etc.
I also read from them that if what they want isn't offered they'll find a way to get it. Much like we did recording LPs, mixing dance tapes, photocopying short pieces like essays and short stories and passing them around. The how is different and far easier but the principle is the same.
Though you don't want to believe it the reality was that the LP or book was most often purchased by the receiver if they ( or I) liked it when I could find it for sale.
If publishers, RIAA and MPAA members can't get it through their collective thick skulls that rolling or staggered releases through different national territories is old school marketing as the market is now global then they need to review what they're doing.
If, as the story points out that Manga publishers in Japan delay too long in translating their work into English then someone will do it for them. The market is global now. Not regional and often not rigidly divided into linguistic groups.
And while it makes sense to roll out movies in major, influential areas such as New York, LA and Chicago in the States or Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto in Canada to see how they'll do at the box office, the word of mouth and so on before committing to smaller areas once we're into releases of DVDs and so on it makes no sense at all. The market is global now.
The kids never said they wouldn't buy. But once something is released in a way where they can't purchase because of region, usually the biggest impediment, they'll find a way to get it. They understand that the market is global now.
Will they buy later? I haven't a clue. I suspect a significant number would but they may get fed up with the same pattern repeating over and over and over again without any reason in the retail sector they may not eventually.
One more point. IP maximalists also seem to be MSP maximalists. That is to say that the market hasn't got a choice but to pay price the maker puts on a good. If the price is too high the market (consumer) protests by not buying the product until it's sold a a price the market finds acceptable.
Music piracy began as a protest over RIAA member's refusals to release and sell singles so people ripped their CDs and did it on their own. Not the legal reaction from a copyright perspective but the rational one given that the format the market wanted wasn't otherwise available. And yes, the consumer (market) DOES get to set things like acceptable format and price.
The "content" industry can howl and complain all it wants. While most of us do want to support the artist it's apparent the *AA's don't because they refuse to sell in formats and pricing that the market will find acceptable.
There's not a thing immoral, illegal, an over abundance of entitlement or freetardy about that. That's was markets exist for.
Clear???????
On the post: We Don't Want Everything For Free. We Just Want Everything
Re: Re: Re: My reasons for reading Scanlations
Of course, according to the IP maximalists monopoly is good because it encourages people to create.
Your link illustrates the exact opposite that monopolies suppress creation. At least quality creation. Just as DC and Marvel continue to re-create their men and women in tights so the RIAA and MPAA continue to recycle the same material over and over and over again under, if we're lucky, a slightly different name. If we're not lucky then it's Batman 33!
So much for an incentive to create.
On the post: File Sharing Drones Proof Of Concept Already Built
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: File Sharing Drones Proof Of Concept Already Built
Re:
On the post: File Sharing Drones Proof Of Concept Already Built
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not all that sure they'd have a hard time finding a state more friendly to their cause and business to act as a land station either. That being the case if State A opens fire on TPB's drones which are registered in State B; State B can consider this an act of war no matter what State A's excuses are. Hardly impunity.
And a precedent has been set. While pirate radio clearly broke the UK's right to regulate the public airwaves (grant a monopoly on spectrum) the Royal Navy never, to the best of my knowledge, never seized or sunk a pirate radio ship operating in international waters. So there is no need to change maritime law as this has already been settled by that example. At least as far as these things ever do get settled.
On the post: Lindsay Lohan's Lawyer's Loopy Legal Argument Laced With Lifted Language?
The Slow Motion Train Wreck Continues
Now it seems to have infected her law firm.
This is proof positive that something affecting her is infectious and she needs to be kept away from the human population, at least the lawyer part of it who seem susceptible to this illness/insanity.
Now, let's return to the previously scheduled train wreck.
On the post: Should There Be A Right To Copyright Exceptions?
Re:
Bear in mind that we do most of what's on that list already both on and off line and, until now, there's not been a wolf pack of lawyers circling us every time we're in a coffee shop, bar or in church discussing or talking about (and transforming) a work covered by copyright.
Not all copying is allowed or permitted under these proposals most notable "for profit" isn't covered. Also, remember that in few, if any, of these cases are there "true" (as in unchanged) verbatim copies made of an entire work only excerpts. Nor to all proposed uses affect only the "content" industry alone. Some apply to the software and IT business who in one form or another from open to closed source do this already.
Nor will any of this result, in my opinion in lost sales, but open paths to greater sales.
Then again, I know you're not going to buy that but I thought I'd waste my time anyway. ;-)
On the post: UFC Makes The Awful Decision To Sue Some Of Its Biggest Fans
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the acts fans are willing to pay that then why not? And acts that can collect that much for prime tickets also draw scalpers who double and triple those prices so the fans must be okay with it.
UFC seems to rely on it's PPV more than a lot of sports which may be why they're so protective of it. It seems to me, and others, though that suing your fans isn't exactly the right way to go to build and expand a business. I can't say I know the business at all as I'm not a fan but whatever infringement is occurring by a fan picking up a stream may be symptomatic of UFC overvaluing the worth of the PPV views, that it wasn't otherwise available to the people they're going to sue or a host of other reasons as outlined by Ben Fowlkes in the article Mike links to.
By the same token pissing off one fan results, particularly in this day and age is as good as pissing off 100. Suing a collection of them, well, that's not just going to piss them off so the multiplier will be much higher.
If UFC is as dependent on it's PPV feed as I understand it is this plan may just backfire. Big time. Perhaps not immediately but in the long term. It just doesn't add up particularly of they're still making money from the PPV regardless and to this point they haven't said they aren't.
Particularly when with one had they say they care about their fans and the other hand is signing affidavits that will form the basis of a collection of lawsuits.
It's just not something I like in terms of risk and reward. I'd rather find out why these fans felt the need to stream.
But that could just be me. Service oriented in the certainty of greater profit later.
On the post: Canadian Real Estate Agents: Without Us, Poor Homeowners Would Be Getting Attacked And Killed
Re: Re: Real Estate RIPE for disruption
And yes, like everything else to do with Real Estate the commission is negotiable. The agent I have working on selling my place was recommended and after working with him for a bit I can see why.
Like anything else, there are good and bad agents.
I don't see what the Toronto Real Estate Board complaining about when they provide the same information to prospective buyers that they now say is dangerous. Also, by their logic, having a For Sale sign on your house or condo is an invitation to a break in or worse. To follow through on that logic all the For Sale signs should come down pronto.
If you follow the link to the Globe and Mail story on this you'll find the Competition Board's answer to the attacks, all of which makes perfect sense to anyone but the Toronto Real Estate Board who've commissioned a poll on the issue, no doubt designed to get the answers they want to get and have gone on the offensive.
Attacks on realtors are usually high profile in the news media and it's been one heck of a long time since I've heard of one.
Next >>