Welcome to progress. We, the customers, no longer need a middle man to get the music, created by the artists, to our ears. Those middle men, and a few *rare* super-artists, have a really good run, and made a staggering amount of money, for a few decades. They saw a market and did an amazing job filling the market's needs.
Unfortunately for them, the needs of the market are changing. This is not up for debate, it is a fact. Technology has progressed to the point where making money solely from selling recordings is impossible. People used to pay for people to bring ice to their houses to keep their food cold. It was a lucrative business, once you paid for all the equipment, as it was just solid water you were selling. Obviously, the equipment needed to do this was not affordable to the average person. Luckily, technology progressed and the equipment needed to freeze water became very cheap and very compact, and these ice delivery men found themselves in a position where their function was no longer needed. If it had happened today, I have a feeling that we would suddenly have laws outlawing making ice at home, or some other such nonsense.
The usual answer is "but look at live music sales", but that usually falls down when people point out that concert ticket prices have skyrockets, and are now dropping due to lack of buyers.
So, you're complaining that people will stop buying something if the price exceeds what they're willing to pay for it? With all respect, I *really* hope you're not in any position of power over anything doing with business, because you clearly have forgotten how it all works.
The most probable outcome is going to be that the era of the superstar will pass and the ability to buy planes and mansions and gold-plated shark tanks from making music will become a thing we'll tell our grandkids about. (They probably won't believe us, either. Darn kids!)
When you wake up and realize that if some punk on his mom's basement or in a dorm room can destroy your business model *and do it for free*, then you might understand that, not only is your business model completely outdated, but you've already lost.
Mike didn't put them together, The Future of Music coalition did.
The point made is that both boxes do effectively the same thing. When dictators and media conglomerates can be thwarted with, and would like to outlaw, the same tool, it says a lot about media conglomerates, doesn't it?
Is your life so devoid of meaning that, when you find no fault with the content of a story on TD, you must instead make a completely irrelevant comment complaining about TD, a site you visit often?
A compulsory license includes the privilege of making a musical arrangement of the work to the extent necessary to conform it to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance involved, but the arrangement shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work, and shall not be subject to protection as a derivative work under this title, except with the express consent of the copyright owner.
satire
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Satire != parody.
fair use
Sadly, fair use can not keep you from getting sued, it can only help you win the suit. I think this should change, but it is what it is, for now.
Must be a slow news day at piracy apologist headquarters.
How does this have anything, at all, to do with piracy?
Seriously - why do you feel the need to write this every time? Do you think people will believe that you are somehow in favour of paedophilia if you don't?
You're not new here, you should know the answer to this: That's *exactly* what would happen. Hell, every time Mike says that arists need to learn that they can make more money giving away their music instead of locking it down and attacking "pirates", he says that he is against piracy, yet how many times have you read someone accuse him of being "pro-copyright infringement" or of "fowarding the pirate agenda"?
Imagine if Mike *didn't* clearly state those things every time. Yikes.
You're slipping, pal. Are you suggesting that by violating a law you are automatically in that law's jurisdiction, regardless of physical location? How many obscure laws from other countries are you breaking right now? Are you under that country's jurisdiction now?
I think law school is having the opposite effect that you were hoping for.
Do you mean literally saying. "Yes"? Because I don't recall ever explicitly asking "do you consent to having sex with me", but I don't consider myself a rapist.
Well, I said that they're probably not thrilled with having to give up almost have their money to stream something that is infinite. You helpfully pointed out that there are not an infinite number of different songs out there. I, being the trusting sort, assume you would only volunteer this information because it has some bearing on the situation.
Are you saying that Pandora *does* pay for each use of an infinite good? I sure hope not, because that would indicate that you offered up information that had no relevance on the situation (though, I'm sure it wasn't to intentionally cloud the issue!) *and* that Pandora is being overcharged.
I'm looking forward to your clarification. Thanks again! :)
On the post: Crytek Manages Not To Lose Their Minds Despite Crysis 2 Leak
Re: This one's for you...
On the post: Crytek Manages Not To Lose Their Minds Despite Crysis 2 Leak
Re: Re:
On the post: Crytek Manages Not To Lose Their Minds Despite Crysis 2 Leak
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Welcome to progress. We, the customers, no longer need a middle man to get the music, created by the artists, to our ears. Those middle men, and a few *rare* super-artists, have a really good run, and made a staggering amount of money, for a few decades. They saw a market and did an amazing job filling the market's needs.
Unfortunately for them, the needs of the market are changing. This is not up for debate, it is a fact. Technology has progressed to the point where making money solely from selling recordings is impossible. People used to pay for people to bring ice to their houses to keep their food cold. It was a lucrative business, once you paid for all the equipment, as it was just solid water you were selling. Obviously, the equipment needed to do this was not affordable to the average person. Luckily, technology progressed and the equipment needed to freeze water became very cheap and very compact, and these ice delivery men found themselves in a position where their function was no longer needed. If it had happened today, I have a feeling that we would suddenly have laws outlawing making ice at home, or some other such nonsense.
The usual answer is "but look at live music sales", but that usually falls down when people point out that concert ticket prices have skyrockets, and are now dropping due to lack of buyers.
So, you're complaining that people will stop buying something if the price exceeds what they're willing to pay for it? With all respect, I *really* hope you're not in any position of power over anything doing with business, because you clearly have forgotten how it all works.
The most probable outcome is going to be that the era of the superstar will pass and the ability to buy planes and mansions and gold-plated shark tanks from making music will become a thing we'll tell our grandkids about. (They probably won't believe us, either. Darn kids!)
On the post: Sometimes 'Piracy' And Freedom Look Remarkably Similar
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sometimes 'Piracy' And Freedom Look Remarkably Similar
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If "it's always been that way" is your only defense for keeping a law on the books, you're in trouble.
On the post: Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sometimes 'Piracy' And Freedom Look Remarkably Similar
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point made is that both boxes do effectively the same thing. When dictators and media conglomerates can be thwarted with, and would like to outlaw, the same tool, it says a lot about media conglomerates, doesn't it?
On the post: Is This The First DMCA Notice Over 3D Printer Plans?
Re: They call it dirt for a reason
On the post: $2.3 Billion Lawsuit Against China For Copyright Infringement In Green Dam Filter Software Moves Forward
Beer money
On the post: James Earl Jones Reciting Justin Bieber Lyrics On TV... Copyright Infringement Or Not?
Re:
He didn't keep the same melody, so it's clearly derivative, which isn't covered by performance rights licences.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/115.html#a_2
satire
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Satire != parody.
fair use
Sadly, fair use can not keep you from getting sued, it can only help you win the suit. I think this should change, but it is what it is, for now.
Must be a slow news day at piracy apologist headquarters.
How does this have anything, at all, to do with piracy?
On the post: Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?
Re: Re: Re: Psh, easy.
I'm more interested in why you think NASCAR will stop having races in the US if they don't get free money from the government.
On the post: Musician/Comedian Faces 20 Years In Jail For Silly Video No Different Than Done On TV & In Movies
Re: Re: Re: Did he get authorization from the parents?
The *public* school he was *invited* to is public property. You don't have an expectation of privacy in public spaces.
On the post: Musician/Comedian Faces 20 Years In Jail For Silly Video No Different Than Done On TV & In Movies
Re: This subject has become a minefield
You're not new here, you should know the answer to this: That's *exactly* what would happen. Hell, every time Mike says that arists need to learn that they can make more money giving away their music instead of locking it down and attacking "pirates", he says that he is against piracy, yet how many times have you read someone accuse him of being "pro-copyright infringement" or of "fowarding the pirate agenda"?
Imagine if Mike *didn't* clearly state those things every time. Yikes.
On the post: Ron Wyden Speaks Out Against COICA: We Shouldn't Toss Out The First Amendment Just To Go After A Few Bad Actors
Re: Re: Re:
I think law school is having the opposite effect that you were hoping for.
On the post: Ron Wyden Speaks Out Against COICA: We Shouldn't Toss Out The First Amendment Just To Go After A Few Bad Actors
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My bad.
On the post: Ron Wyden Speaks Out Against COICA: We Shouldn't Toss Out The First Amendment Just To Go After A Few Bad Actors
Re: Re: Re:
Tell you what, you show me an unbiased study showing net harm and we'll talk about preventing said harm.
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Continued:
On the post: How Come No One Calls Out Pandora For False Promise Of Profitability?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This was so expected ...
Are you saying that Pandora *does* pay for each use of an infinite good? I sure hope not, because that would indicate that you offered up information that had no relevance on the situation (though, I'm sure it wasn't to intentionally cloud the issue!) *and* that Pandora is being overcharged.
I'm looking forward to your clarification. Thanks again! :)
On the post: Would Shakespeare Have Survived Today's Copyright Laws?
Re: Authors Guild?
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Continued:
Anyway, what about girls who get sloppy drunk? When they make a poor decision to sleep with some guy, is that rape?
Next >>