The novelty of them coming across as ordinary people wears off quickly...
Perhaps. Or maybe fans will find that it's more important that their favorite artists are identifiable as "real". Just because that's the way it is today, doesn't mean that's the way it will always be.
Just keep piling on all that stuff you expect artists to manage and do by themselves, besides writing, performing, and recording their music... then what you have isn't people who make the best music, but people who are good at all the other crap.
This may be true to a certain extent, but it's nothing new. The same could be said for any other number of changes to the music industry. For example, you can say that when MTV came along, the artists who were succesful weren't the ones who made the best music, but the ones who were good at making videos. You can argue that, as a whole, videos hurt music while they helped the music industry, but my point is that there's always something new demanding the time of an artist. Twitter hasn't changed the general formula that successful artists are the ones who are good at things other than music.
Important? Or important enough that if it were left out, the content of the post would be "suspect"? No way. Sure, the post might have been more interesting if it included a description of how the Christian music scene already fosters a close relationship between artists and their fans, but have you considered that Mike just wasn't aware of this fact? Or that while this information gives some additional context to the subject, it doesn't change the essential point that the music industry as a whole could benefit from using this model?
In short, you appear to be calling Mike's post into question for no rational reason.
*yawn* - Mike has repeatedly pointed at the old "no harm" legal arguments.
If there are so many repetitions of this, then it won't be so hard to find an example, right? I can't think of any single instance where Mike or any Techdirt contributors has stated that copyright infringement hasn't caused any harm to anyone. (The new automobile industry caused "harm" to the buggy whip industry; it doesn't mean this was immoral or illegal.)
What TD has stated is that in spite of the moral or legal arguments against copyright infringement, if you're interested in making money, there are better ways to do so than to preoccupy yourself with who "stole" what and change your business model to account for the new environment. Would you rather be right and left behind in the new marketplace or "wrong" and make money?
The old "strawman" claim is a standard way of asking someone not to state everything in one place at one time.
While you have used the technique, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of the strawman argument. Again, I suggest you look it up. Here's a hint: contradicting a statement that was never made in the first place.
So, your point appears to be that because Techdirt repeatedly points out the fallacious logic in these kinds of studies, that their logic must be false or else why would they keep on referring to previous instances of them pointing out fallacious logic. Yep! Makes perfect sense to me! Congratulations. You've exposed the conspiracy.
Here's a clue. If you have a problem with the logic presented in a Techdirt post, oh...I don't know, maybe you could actualy state what your problem is rather than making indirect attacks that sound pointed, but that are actually nonsense.
Is is not bigger of a lie than saying that widespread downloading / file sharing / infringement / copyright violation / (some say theft of services) isn't causing any hard either.
Then it's a good thing that Techdirt has never made this statement. You might want to look up "strawman argument".
Even if you take the value of downloaded items down to 2 pounds 50, there is still billions of dollars there. Even if there is only 1 pound of harm, there is still harm.
So, what you're saying is that even if they didn't lie about how big the problem is, the problem would still be big. Well...if this is the case, why do they have to lie about how big the problem is?
Deal with it. "Downloading" and using commercial software without a license is stealing services.
Actually, it's not stealing. You've apparently made an incorrect assumption on TD's stance on the topic, but calling it by the right name isn't saying that it's ethical or legal. It's about calling it the right thing. Deal with it.
It seems perfectly fair to me. The product that the AP provides is accurate news. If the AP provides innacurate news, not only does their overall reputation and marketability decrease, but they've failed to provide a quality product which makes it perfectly fair to criticize them. Saying it's unfair to criticize the AP for publishing erroneous information is like saying it's unfair to blame St. Louis Cardinals when they lose a game.
Exactly. If your country's GDP is x and the total number of "losses" from all of these kinds of studies is 10x, you'll immediately see how ridiculously overblown these estimates are.
It'd be interesting to add up all of the "losses" estimated by all of these kinds of studies and compare the total to the country's Gross National Product. I'm betting that you'd probably find that the estimates for losses from copyright infringement and stuff like lost time for surfing the Web would come to many times more than what the country even produces in a year.
Re: Re: Re: wha constitutes a public performance has been execessively broadened
I think I see what you're saying here...that if your definition of a public performance is so overly-broad as to include anything that is transmitted to the public instead of a performance that occurs in public, then (at least in your own mind) you'd be consistant in saying that a download or a stream of a song is the same as a download or a stream of a game that contains a song.
"A public performance also occurs when the performance is transmitted by means of any device or process (for example, via broadcast, telephone wire, or other means) to the public."
A sensible person would interpret this to mean "to people in a public area". But the only way that Pepe's statement makes any sense is if she believes (or wants people to believe) that it really means "to a member of the public." But if you take that latter meaning, it means any transmission, stream, or download of a song is a public performance, regardless of the surroundings of the destination . But this definition is, of course, patently ridiculous.
with a music based game like Rock Band, it's the music that is driving the value of the game.
I agree. The simple way of looking at it is that it's a mutually beneficial arrangement. The music drives sales of the game and the game drives sales of the music. In any case, the extent to which the sales are driven in one direction or another is irrelevent to the issue of performance rights, so why even get bogged down in making this distinction?
If your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...
I personally don't think ASCAP's push for payment of performance rights in video games is an example of "if your only tool is a hammer..." Rather, I think that they know full well that performance rights don't apply to video games, but that by throwing out terms like "streaming" and "internet-based services", they can convince enough people that it does apply that they can wring more money out of the system.
So, while your analysis of why performance rights don't apply to video games is interesting, I don't think of it is news to the people who run ASCAP.
If the only tool you sell is a hammer, you need everyone to keep buying nails.
Copyright is relevent to this discussion because it is one of the tools that the NFL uses to overreach its control over information. People aren't upset about which legal method the NFL, MLB, and other similar organizations attempt to extort other companies into paying them money for using information that should be free. They're upset about the extortion itself.
1) They aren't any more similar than plain white toast and a glass of champagne.
Historic battles and sporting events are similar in that they generate factual information which can't be copyrighted. You're statement that these two types of events are not the same is irrelevent because the original point was not that they were themselves the same, but that they generates the same type of information. If you want to provide lists of other food or beverage items that are not the same, fine. But it's ignoring the point.
2) Using only the data wouldn't be an issue, but there is the issue of player names, league name (which is copyright and marketing partners pay big to be part of), etc.
How much "marketing partners" pay the NFL is irrelevent to the legality and morality of whether the NFL has the right to charge for these services. The whole point of the lawsuit is to question the legality of those requirements that NFL give permission to use factual information.
Creating an NFL Fantasy League suggests at least a little bit that the NFL may be involved, which they are not.
I think it would suggest an affiliation only to the proverbial moron in a hurry.
Using the NFL name and the player data isn't a clear "free" use.
In my opinion it is and, more importantly, it should be. Do you disagree that it should be?
As there are conflicting judgements in different districts, it is clear that this issue is far from as cut and dry as you suggest it is.
True enough. However, I believe that the "ownership" of factual information was never the intent of copyright and that the NFL's and MLB's use of copyright to attempt to control all aspects of the games, including claiming copyright on player stats, is a corruption of the law that should be corrected.
Public battles are not the same as private sporting events.
1) He didn't say they were the same. He made a legitimate comparison between two similar concepts. Do you really not understand the difference between "similar" and "same"?
2) Whether or not the event which generated the factual information is public or private or whether it was protected by copyright is completely irrelevent to the situation. What's important is that the Yahoo is using factual information which, as the TD post clearly pointed out, is not protected by copyright. How the factual information came to be or if it's used in a subsequent commercial venture doesn't matter according to the law.
The point is that people aren't going to pay any amount of money per track if they can get every song ever recorded by simply copying their friend's hard drive. No matter how much you lower the price per track, this isn't going to change. Sure artists are entitle to be compesated for their work, but many of the topics brought up on this web site are about how that compensation is going to have to be something other than a per track model.
Should movies be a dollar as well (I can hear all the YESs now)? The point is a dollar a song seems pretty fair to me.
The point of the TD post is that, given the increase in storage capacity and the ability to transfer huge amounts of copyrighted data, it becomes all but impossible to enforce what "should" be or what is "fair". It's not that these devices change what should be or what's fair; it's that if you are trying to make money in a world where your friend can hand you a device that has every song every recorded, the business model of selling a download of a song for a dollar is no longer viable.
In the end, the vast majority (nearly all) of the in depth coverage of news comes from print media in one form or another, and almost all the opinion media comes from TV and internet.
You're making the same mistake Sturm and the newspaper industry in general is making, namely that just because that's the way it is now, it can never be any different. Sure, sources of news other than newspapers can't match the newspaper industry yet, but do you honestly think it's impossible for anyone else to do the job the newspapers do? That's like saying a baby won't ever grow up to run a marathon because all it can do now is crawl.
"No amount of effort from local bloggers, non-profit news entities or TV news sources could match the depth and breadth of newspaper-produced content."
- John F. Sturm
It seems to me that all of the troubles that the newspaper industry is having adjusting to the Internet can be summarized in this opinion. It assumes that what is always will be. It assumes that by some irrevocable birthright, the newspaper industry is the only model which can provide the kind of newsgathering and reporting necessary for a democracy.
"Newspapers are reinventing themselves to focus on serving disctinct audiences with a variety of products and delivering those audiences effectively to advertisers across media channels."
It seems here at least Sturm is recognizing that the newspaper industry has to change in order to survive in a marketplace that includes the Internet. However, if their attitude is that they have no real competition, then their efforts are almost certainly going to be fruitless. It's one thing to recognize you have competition and plan accordingly. It's another to dismiss your competition as never being able to match your level of service.
On the post: The Key To Being A Successful Musician: Focus On Fan Relationships... Not Industry Relationships
Re:
Perhaps. Or maybe fans will find that it's more important that their favorite artists are identifiable as "real". Just because that's the way it is today, doesn't mean that's the way it will always be.
Just keep piling on all that stuff you expect artists to manage and do by themselves, besides writing, performing, and recording their music... then what you have isn't people who make the best music, but people who are good at all the other crap.
This may be true to a certain extent, but it's nothing new. The same could be said for any other number of changes to the music industry. For example, you can say that when MTV came along, the artists who were succesful weren't the ones who made the best music, but the ones who were good at making videos. You can argue that, as a whole, videos hurt music while they helped the music industry, but my point is that there's always something new demanding the time of an artist. Twitter hasn't changed the general formula that successful artists are the ones who are good at things other than music.
On the post: The Key To Being A Successful Musician: Focus On Fan Relationships... Not Industry Relationships
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Important? Or important enough that if it were left out, the content of the post would be "suspect"? No way. Sure, the post might have been more interesting if it included a description of how the Christian music scene already fosters a close relationship between artists and their fans, but have you considered that Mike just wasn't aware of this fact? Or that while this information gives some additional context to the subject, it doesn't change the essential point that the music industry as a whole could benefit from using this model?
In short, you appear to be calling Mike's post into question for no rational reason.
On the post: Bad Science's Ben Goldacre Rips Apart Bogus Study On File Sharing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If there are so many repetitions of this, then it won't be so hard to find an example, right? I can't think of any single instance where Mike or any Techdirt contributors has stated that copyright infringement hasn't caused any harm to anyone. (The new automobile industry caused "harm" to the buggy whip industry; it doesn't mean this was immoral or illegal.)
What TD has stated is that in spite of the moral or legal arguments against copyright infringement, if you're interested in making money, there are better ways to do so than to preoccupy yourself with who "stole" what and change your business model to account for the new environment. Would you rather be right and left behind in the new marketplace or "wrong" and make money?
The old "strawman" claim is a standard way of asking someone not to state everything in one place at one time.
While you have used the technique, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of the strawman argument. Again, I suggest you look it up. Here's a hint: contradicting a statement that was never made in the first place.
On the post: Bad Science's Ben Goldacre Rips Apart Bogus Study On File Sharing
Re: Re:
Here's a clue. If you have a problem with the logic presented in a Techdirt post, oh...I don't know, maybe you could actualy state what your problem is rather than making indirect attacks that sound pointed, but that are actually nonsense.
On the post: Bad Science's Ben Goldacre Rips Apart Bogus Study On File Sharing
Re: Re: Re:
Then it's a good thing that Techdirt has never made this statement. You might want to look up "strawman argument".
On the post: Bad Science's Ben Goldacre Rips Apart Bogus Study On File Sharing
Re:
So, what you're saying is that even if they didn't lie about how big the problem is, the problem would still be big. Well...if this is the case, why do they have to lie about how big the problem is?
Deal with it. "Downloading" and using commercial software without a license is stealing services.
Actually, it's not stealing. You've apparently made an incorrect assumption on TD's stance on the topic, but calling it by the right name isn't saying that it's ethical or legal. It's about calling it the right thing. Deal with it.
On the post: La Russa & The AP Claims Twitter Settled Lawsuit... Twitter Sets The Record Straight
Re: Fact Checkers
It seems perfectly fair to me. The product that the AP provides is accurate news. If the AP provides innacurate news, not only does their overall reputation and marketability decrease, but they've failed to provide a quality product which makes it perfectly fair to criticize them. Saying it's unfair to criticize the AP for publishing erroneous information is like saying it's unfair to blame St. Louis Cardinals when they lose a game.
On the post: Bad Science's Ben Goldacre Rips Apart Bogus Study On File Sharing
Re:
On the post: Bad Science's Ben Goldacre Rips Apart Bogus Study On File Sharing
GNP
On the post: ASCAP Thinks That Video Game Providers Should Pay Music Performance Royalties
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: wha constitutes a public performance has been execessively broadened
"Yup" only if you agree with the tortured logic of ASCAP's definition. Do you?
On the post: ASCAP Thinks That Video Game Providers Should Pay Music Performance Royalties
Re: Re: Re: wha constitutes a public performance has been execessively broadened
"A public performance also occurs when the performance is transmitted by means of any device or process (for example, via broadcast, telephone wire, or other means) to the public."
A sensible person would interpret this to mean "to people in a public area". But the only way that Pepe's statement makes any sense is if she believes (or wants people to believe) that it really means "to a member of the public." But if you take that latter meaning, it means any transmission, stream, or download of a song is a public performance, regardless of the surroundings of the destination . But this definition is, of course, patently ridiculous.
On the post: ASCAP Thinks That Video Game Providers Should Pay Music Performance Royalties
Re: Agree With Everything You Said Except
I agree. The simple way of looking at it is that it's a mutually beneficial arrangement. The music drives sales of the game and the game drives sales of the music. In any case, the extent to which the sales are driven in one direction or another is irrelevent to the issue of performance rights, so why even get bogged down in making this distinction?
On the post: ASCAP Thinks That Video Game Providers Should Pay Music Performance Royalties
If the only tool you sell is a hammer...
I personally don't think ASCAP's push for payment of performance rights in video games is an example of "if your only tool is a hammer..." Rather, I think that they know full well that performance rights don't apply to video games, but that by throwing out terms like "streaming" and "internet-based services", they can convince enough people that it does apply that they can wring more money out of the system.
So, while your analysis of why performance rights don't apply to video games is interesting, I don't think of it is news to the people who run ASCAP.
If the only tool you sell is a hammer, you need everyone to keep buying nails.
On the post: Yahoo Gets Aggressive: Wants Court To Make It Clear That It Doesn't Need To Pay To Use Player Names/Stats
Re:
On the post: Yahoo Gets Aggressive: Wants Court To Make It Clear That It Doesn't Need To Pay To Use Player Names/Stats
Re: Re: Re: Re: So what?
Historic battles and sporting events are similar in that they generate factual information which can't be copyrighted. You're statement that these two types of events are not the same is irrelevent because the original point was not that they were themselves the same, but that they generates the same type of information. If you want to provide lists of other food or beverage items that are not the same, fine. But it's ignoring the point.
2) Using only the data wouldn't be an issue, but there is the issue of player names, league name (which is copyright and marketing partners pay big to be part of), etc.
How much "marketing partners" pay the NFL is irrelevent to the legality and morality of whether the NFL has the right to charge for these services. The whole point of the lawsuit is to question the legality of those requirements that NFL give permission to use factual information.
Creating an NFL Fantasy League suggests at least a little bit that the NFL may be involved, which they are not.
I think it would suggest an affiliation only to the proverbial moron in a hurry.
Using the NFL name and the player data isn't a clear "free" use.
In my opinion it is and, more importantly, it should be. Do you disagree that it should be?
As there are conflicting judgements in different districts, it is clear that this issue is far from as cut and dry as you suggest it is.
True enough. However, I believe that the "ownership" of factual information was never the intent of copyright and that the NFL's and MLB's use of copyright to attempt to control all aspects of the games, including claiming copyright on player stats, is a corruption of the law that should be corrected.
On the post: Yahoo Gets Aggressive: Wants Court To Make It Clear That It Doesn't Need To Pay To Use Player Names/Stats
Re: Re: So what?
1) He didn't say they were the same. He made a legitimate comparison between two similar concepts. Do you really not understand the difference between "similar" and "same"?
2) Whether or not the event which generated the factual information is public or private or whether it was protected by copyright is completely irrelevent to the situation. What's important is that the Yahoo is using factual information which, as the TD post clearly pointed out, is not protected by copyright. How the factual information came to be or if it's used in a subsequent commercial venture doesn't matter according to the law.
On the post: When You Can Hold Every Song Ever Recorded In Your Pocket... Does $1/Song Still Make Sense?
Re:
The point is that people aren't going to pay any amount of money per track if they can get every song ever recorded by simply copying their friend's hard drive. No matter how much you lower the price per track, this isn't going to change. Sure artists are entitle to be compesated for their work, but many of the topics brought up on this web site are about how that compensation is going to have to be something other than a per track model.
On the post: When You Can Hold Every Song Ever Recorded In Your Pocket... Does $1/Song Still Make Sense?
Re:
The point of the TD post is that, given the increase in storage capacity and the ability to transfer huge amounts of copyrighted data, it becomes all but impossible to enforce what "should" be or what is "fair". It's not that these devices change what should be or what's fair; it's that if you are trying to make money in a world where your friend can hand you a device that has every song every recorded, the business model of selling a download of a song for a dollar is no longer viable.
On the post: Newspaper Association Insists That Only Newspapers Can Do Real Reporting
Re: Re:
You're making the same mistake Sturm and the newspaper industry in general is making, namely that just because that's the way it is now, it can never be any different. Sure, sources of news other than newspapers can't match the newspaper industry yet, but do you honestly think it's impossible for anyone else to do the job the newspapers do? That's like saying a baby won't ever grow up to run a marathon because all it can do now is crawl.
On the post: Newspaper Association Insists That Only Newspapers Can Do Real Reporting
- John F. Sturm
It seems to me that all of the troubles that the newspaper industry is having adjusting to the Internet can be summarized in this opinion. It assumes that what is always will be. It assumes that by some irrevocable birthright, the newspaper industry is the only model which can provide the kind of newsgathering and reporting necessary for a democracy.
"Newspapers are reinventing themselves to focus on serving disctinct audiences with a variety of products and delivering those audiences effectively to advertisers across media channels."
It seems here at least Sturm is recognizing that the newspaper industry has to change in order to survive in a marketplace that includes the Internet. However, if their attitude is that they have no real competition, then their efforts are almost certainly going to be fruitless. It's one thing to recognize you have competition and plan accordingly. It's another to dismiss your competition as never being able to match your level of service.
Next >>