"The issue at hand is that they're trying to access this Twitter info without a warrant."
Indeed, and to do otherwise is to start a process where 'innocent until proven guilty' is no longer relevant...
Not that we haven't already been going down that road for years.
What a cesspool of a nation these current politicians and 'justice/law enforcement' excuses are making of the US (and other nations).
The only reason any of these clowns exist is to enforce and protect the rights of the country's citizens. But somehow they spin it to doing 'this and that' is protecting rights or someone else, blah, blah, blah.
Doesn't matter when they no longer follow the rule of law.
The 4th amendment is quite clear - and if there's a doubt, it should fall upon anyone in politics or law-enforcement to adhere to the principles of our constitution, rather than be a lazy slob and find ways around it.
If that chart is true - that means an artist could just put songs up on an web-site, put up a 'donate' button and if 2% actually donate, they'll double their profits.
Of course, if they add some value or setup a subscription service for even $9.99 a year, I'd bet they'd still profit more.
That's what it's really about. The labels don't want that happening, it would send them into obscurity.
It really goes for any product, once it can be replicated at will, the only way to attract business is to somehow add 'value' - such as the case in produce. Anyone can grow tomatoes, but we typically buy them. In essence, this concept has been around since the first person sold produce and made a profit.
Of course, if you could click a button and instantly pop out tomatoes, imagine the laws that Monsanto would instantly lobby for.
But in the case of produce, you are paying for convenience and time. Seems to me the recording industry, if they are to stay viable - needs to find value to add. Doesn't matter what the laws are... the can of worms is opened - people *know* you can replicate music quickly and easily. Even if torrent was squashed, it wouldn't stop people trading CD's and ripping them, or even recording them from XM/Cable Digital Feeds.
The defining feature of real ownership is possession (as it has been since the dawn of time); the law only clarifies and systematizes that to make our lives simpler. Economically, real property can be regarded as a monopoly only because of its "uniqueness" (inherent exclusion by possession), not because of the law -- and that interpretation is stretching the economic concept of monopolies, as the word "monopoly" is not generally used to define "property".
Intellectual "property" is a figment created by law that has no actual basis on the natural characteristics of ideas. There is no inherent exclusion by possession, as ideas cannot be owned (as it has been since the dawn of time), and the only way Intellectual "property" can exist is through an artificial monopoly explicitly granted by congress.
Indeed - because the memory of a song, in a person's head will remain - regardless of laws.
Isn't that - really the same thing? It's data, just in a different format - technically, right?
If - hypothetically - that could be done away with, advertising would suddenly become the one's suing - since no one would remember the product after the 'rights' to the 'idea' is removed from their head.
It would be *impossible* to maintain this 'law' as this kind of level.
Are they to ban the sound waves from traveling out of a person's car if they are next to me?
Or from a bar I walk past?
Or a music store I walk past?
Wouldn't that all be 'infringement' with this same concept?
Trying to enforce that would either be an exercise in futility or sheer insanity, really both.
If not for 'free music' on the radio - you know.. the music industry wouldn't even exist, as it were. Radio has always been the *core* advertising for music.
How many have bought songs that they have never heard? In the case of a 'favorite artist' - sure sometimes, and even the random purchase - but does that contribute to the *majority* of sales? Of course not. But that's what they are seemingly claiming.
So.. to all this - *why* does 'free music' exist on radio?
Sure maybe the station paid for the 'rights' - but how many of the listeners did?
This would make for good opportunity for some who might seek to do damage to credit card companies...
Just put up a self-proclaimed 'pirate site' - get some transactions and make accusations.
Sure they might know that 'PirateBay' is a site they wouldn't work with in light of the law, but what if someone put up 'MovieMadnezz.com' - put up pirated stuff and set up a credit card billing scheme....
I've always wondered at how a police officer somehow feels threatened when being recorded while at the same time having a camera mounted om their dashboard recording everything they do in the front of their car. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy if you are a police officer on the job.
Well said. And... "If they aren't doing anything wrong, they should have nothing to hide." - isn't that what they tell us?
"Analysts were already anticipating a killer Q4 for Netflix, and unlike practically every other company on the face of the planet, it delivered. The movie rental firm somehow managed to see net income rise to $22.7 million in the quarter, up from $15.7 million in Q4 2007. Revenue was also up by 19 percent, and subscriber growth was pegged at an amazing 26 percent."
How is it that they did THIS WELL - when people can just download movies? Care to explain that?
Oh I can - it's because it's a good, hassle free service. People don't mind paying for media - but people don't like getting ripped off.
Plain and simple - $17.00 for 15 songs - is a rip-off.
Almost everyone has 'their price' - some are much, much cheaper than others.
My "side" is actually winning. You will never destroy the laws that protect artists and creators.
You slimeballs deserve every bit of invective you get here for being so greedy, and for promoting the ripping off of musicians.
And maybe not - who says anyone is looking to destroy artists anyway? Point is - technology is changing, they can get on-board or not, it's up to them.
I suspect the tide of 'peer to peer' - will be harder to stop than it would be to eliminate these laws in any event.
But many companies have embraced new technology and business models - take NetFlix for instance. No laws have been changed, but that doesn't change BlockBuster's position... The one up the street from me just shut down.
If all this 'peer to peer' is killing profits - why is NetFlix basically kicking sand in the competition's face?
"Analysts were already anticipating a killer Q4 for Netflix, and unlike practically every other company on the face of the planet, it delivered. The movie rental firm somehow managed to see net income rise to $22.7 million in the quarter, up from $15.7 million in Q4 2007. Revenue was also up by 19 percent, and subscriber growth was pegged at an amazing 26 percent."
Because they hit the ground running. Imagine.. the potential of media delivered to people in an easy to use and hassle free manner - kinda like NetFlix?
What kind of profit potential is there?
Sorry, but the market for the proverbial horse and buggy is dying. Doesn't matter what's made illegal - that will not change this simple fact: I am not willing to pay for the old business model anymore. I pay for cable - not for the sitcoms and 15 minute commercial spots - I pay for the on-demand.
The music industry's business model sucks bad. I don't even bother anymore. I just ripped the CD's I have to digital files and listen to the same old stuff I have been. Otherwise there's XM. But 99% of the new stuff just isn't compelling - for the price - to buy.
Of course, lately - I managed to find a few new artists out there - independents that are pretty dang good..
And yes, I pay for my media, I'm not a leech. But if I'm going to pay for a product, it has to be a purchase that makes sense.
Would I buy an 8-track now? No.
What's the sense in buying CD's now? The technology jump between CD and Digital was even larger than the jump from 8-track to CD... by far.
Do music companies offer high quality physical disks with an entire band's anthology on them in digital formats? You could put ALL of the Beatles tunes on a single DVD - two at most, depending on quality. But it's not out there, is it?
You might be able to find some overpriced collection for $70.00 - but is that worth it - when the public is fully aware of the potential to use new technology?
Nope, it isn't.
If you can't give the customer what they desire - it's a fault of the business, not the customer. We know the technology is out there and we will use it - doesn't matter if the music industry likes it or not.
"Two years ago, we wrote about some experiments by Valve, where it tried lowering prices of games by 10%, 25%, 50% and 75% -- and saw the increase in sales at a stupendous rate."
When i first ran into Steam, it was for Halflife 2. Expensive game on release.
Game prices were about the same for them all on Steam - $29.99+ and actually most were $39.99+
Didn't buy any... other than having HL2 physical media.
Steam dropped a lot of games to $9.95 or less on some.
Bought 6 of them. At $39.99 I would have bought none of them. Either way, it only cost Steam a bit of bandwidth.
"He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers."
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."
"For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:"
"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
This sums up our current government - how many more offenses will the people take 'King George'?
Seems like; simply put, the whole patent and copyright system is woefully broken.
Sadly; whatever government does to fix it will be 50% corporate interests, 1% creative interests, 1% for the interests of the people and 48% confusion.
On the post: More Reasons Why Homeland Security Seizing Domain Names Is Unconstitutional
They'll be coming for you next Mike.
As long as the domains have a tangible value then due process should be required, period.
On the post: Judge Says Gov't Can Get Access To Twitter Account Data Of Wikileaks' Associates
Indeed, and to do otherwise is to start a process where 'innocent until proven guilty' is no longer relevant...
Not that we haven't already been going down that road for years.
What a cesspool of a nation these current politicians and 'justice/law enforcement' excuses are making of the US (and other nations).
The only reason any of these clowns exist is to enforce and protect the rights of the country's citizens. But somehow they spin it to doing 'this and that' is protecting rights or someone else, blah, blah, blah.
Doesn't matter when they no longer follow the rule of law.
The 4th amendment is quite clear - and if there's a doubt, it should fall upon anyone in politics or law-enforcement to adhere to the principles of our constitution, rather than be a lazy slob and find ways around it.
On the post: 'Free' Culture Folks Discuss Models For Sustainable Creativity
Of course, if they add some value or setup a subscription service for even $9.99 a year, I'd bet they'd still profit more.
That's what it's really about. The labels don't want that happening, it would send them into obscurity.
It really goes for any product, once it can be replicated at will, the only way to attract business is to somehow add 'value' - such as the case in produce. Anyone can grow tomatoes, but we typically buy them. In essence, this concept has been around since the first person sold produce and made a profit.
Of course, if you could click a button and instantly pop out tomatoes, imagine the laws that Monsanto would instantly lobby for.
But in the case of produce, you are paying for convenience and time. Seems to me the recording industry, if they are to stay viable - needs to find value to add. Doesn't matter what the laws are... the can of worms is opened - people *know* you can replicate music quickly and easily. Even if torrent was squashed, it wouldn't stop people trading CD's and ripping them, or even recording them from XM/Cable Digital Feeds.
On the post: Music Is Not A Product, And You'll Never Adapt If You Think It Is
Intellectual "property" is a figment created by law that has no actual basis on the natural characteristics of ideas. There is no inherent exclusion by possession, as ideas cannot be owned (as it has been since the dawn of time), and the only way Intellectual "property" can exist is through an artificial monopoly explicitly granted by congress.
Indeed - because the memory of a song, in a person's head will remain - regardless of laws.
Isn't that - really the same thing? It's data, just in a different format - technically, right?
If - hypothetically - that could be done away with, advertising would suddenly become the one's suing - since no one would remember the product after the 'rights' to the 'idea' is removed from their head.
It would be *impossible* to maintain this 'law' as this kind of level.
Are they to ban the sound waves from traveling out of a person's car if they are next to me?
Or from a bar I walk past?
Or a music store I walk past?
Wouldn't that all be 'infringement' with this same concept?
Trying to enforce that would either be an exercise in futility or sheer insanity, really both.
If not for 'free music' on the radio - you know.. the music industry wouldn't even exist, as it were. Radio has always been the *core* advertising for music.
How many have bought songs that they have never heard? In the case of a 'favorite artist' - sure sometimes, and even the random purchase - but does that contribute to the *majority* of sales? Of course not. But that's what they are seemingly claiming.
So.. to all this - *why* does 'free music' exist on radio?
Sure maybe the station paid for the 'rights' - but how many of the listeners did?
On the post: Minecraft Creator Says 'No Such Thing As A Lost Sale'
Are they advanced enough to replicate spaceships at will? Or do agendas, politics, and notions of 'control' keep them from doing that? :)
On the post: Darrell Issa Tells IP Czar That She's 'Not Trying' If She Can't Pin Liability For File Sharing On Third Parties
Just put up a self-proclaimed 'pirate site' - get some transactions and make accusations.
Sure they might know that 'PirateBay' is a site they wouldn't work with in light of the law, but what if someone put up 'MovieMadnezz.com' - put up pirated stuff and set up a credit card billing scheme....
This can and will be abused.
On the post: New Bill In Connecticut Would Make It Illegal For Police To Stop You From Recording Them
Well said. And... "If they aren't doing anything wrong, they should have nothing to hide." - isn't that what they tell us?
On the post: Confirmed: Chris Dodd Lies, Takes Top Lobbying Job, Promises To Trample Consumer Rights
"Analysts were already anticipating a killer Q4 for Netflix, and unlike practically every other company on the face of the planet, it delivered. The movie rental firm somehow managed to see net income rise to $22.7 million in the quarter, up from $15.7 million in Q4 2007. Revenue was also up by 19 percent, and subscriber growth was pegged at an amazing 26 percent."
How is it that they did THIS WELL - when people can just download movies? Care to explain that?
Oh I can - it's because it's a good, hassle free service. People don't mind paying for media - but people don't like getting ripped off.
Plain and simple - $17.00 for 15 songs - is a rip-off.
On the post: Confirmed: Chris Dodd Lies, Takes Top Lobbying Job, Promises To Trample Consumer Rights
My "side" is actually winning. You will never destroy the laws that protect artists and creators.
You slimeballs deserve every bit of invective you get here for being so greedy, and for promoting the ripping off of musicians.
And maybe not - who says anyone is looking to destroy artists anyway? Point is - technology is changing, they can get on-board or not, it's up to them.
I suspect the tide of 'peer to peer' - will be harder to stop than it would be to eliminate these laws in any event.
But many companies have embraced new technology and business models - take NetFlix for instance. No laws have been changed, but that doesn't change BlockBuster's position... The one up the street from me just shut down.
If all this 'peer to peer' is killing profits - why is NetFlix basically kicking sand in the competition's face?
http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/26/netflix-profit-up-45-in-q4-nears-10-million-total-subscr ibers/
"Analysts were already anticipating a killer Q4 for Netflix, and unlike practically every other company on the face of the planet, it delivered. The movie rental firm somehow managed to see net income rise to $22.7 million in the quarter, up from $15.7 million in Q4 2007. Revenue was also up by 19 percent, and subscriber growth was pegged at an amazing 26 percent."
Because they hit the ground running. Imagine.. the potential of media delivered to people in an easy to use and hassle free manner - kinda like NetFlix?
What kind of profit potential is there?
Sorry, but the market for the proverbial horse and buggy is dying. Doesn't matter what's made illegal - that will not change this simple fact: I am not willing to pay for the old business model anymore. I pay for cable - not for the sitcoms and 15 minute commercial spots - I pay for the on-demand.
The music industry's business model sucks bad. I don't even bother anymore. I just ripped the CD's I have to digital files and listen to the same old stuff I have been. Otherwise there's XM. But 99% of the new stuff just isn't compelling - for the price - to buy.
Of course, lately - I managed to find a few new artists out there - independents that are pretty dang good..
And yes, I pay for my media, I'm not a leech. But if I'm going to pay for a product, it has to be a purchase that makes sense.
Would I buy an 8-track now? No.
What's the sense in buying CD's now? The technology jump between CD and Digital was even larger than the jump from 8-track to CD... by far.
Do music companies offer high quality physical disks with an entire band's anthology on them in digital formats? You could put ALL of the Beatles tunes on a single DVD - two at most, depending on quality. But it's not out there, is it?
You might be able to find some overpriced collection for $70.00 - but is that worth it - when the public is fully aware of the potential to use new technology?
Nope, it isn't.
If you can't give the customer what they desire - it's a fault of the business, not the customer. We know the technology is out there and we will use it - doesn't matter if the music industry likes it or not.
On the post: Guy Uses GPS Data On Mobile Phone To Get Out Of A Speeding Ticket
Indeed, that almost makes me want to get a smartphone.
Of course, you know it's not long off - that this will be used in reverse..
They'll complain they don't have the funds to keep police working on traffic all the time. GPS will automate the speeding ticket writing process.
On the post: Yet Another Person Sues Google Because They Don't Like Pornographic Results When People Search On Their Name
On the post: Maybe Super Cheap Video Games Are Helping, Not Destroying, The Video Game Industry
When i first ran into Steam, it was for Halflife 2. Expensive game on release.
Game prices were about the same for them all on Steam - $29.99+ and actually most were $39.99+
Didn't buy any... other than having HL2 physical media.
Steam dropped a lot of games to $9.95 or less on some.
Bought 6 of them. At $39.99 I would have bought none of them. Either way, it only cost Steam a bit of bandwidth.
On the post: Feds Appealing Ruling That Said Warrantless Wiretapping Was Illegal; Will This Backfire?
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."
"For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:"
"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
This sums up our current government - how many more offenses will the people take 'King George'?
On the post: Feds Appealing Ruling That Said Warrantless Wiretapping Was Illegal; Will This Backfire?
So much for a society where the 'rule of law' trumps political agendas..
On the post: Armed TSA Agent Gets By Scanners Multiple Times
Fail.
On the post: Maryland Corrections Agency Demanding All Social Media Passwords Of Potential Hires
I'd just delete my Facebook - done deal.
On the post: $2.3 Billion Lawsuit Against China For Copyright Infringement In Green Dam Filter Software Moves Forward
Thanks Al Gore... see what you've done?
On the post: China's President Wants Greater Internet Censorship; Worried About Middle East Uprisings
But people, not being the same as machines - will not ever enjoy that.
On the post: Musician/Comedian Faces 20 Years In Jail For Silly Video No Different Than Done On TV & In Movies
On the post: Lawsuit Claims Miller High Life Loyalty Program Infringes Patent
Sadly; whatever government does to fix it will be 50% corporate interests, 1% creative interests, 1% for the interests of the people and 48% confusion.
Next >>