I've made this point before in regard to other topics on this blog, but this time it's spot on.
THEY HAD THEIR CHANCE
The music industry had their chance to be friends with us consumers and they blew it. Need a new format for your music? Bring us your old vinyl and we will give you a discount on that cassette. Bring us that old cassette and we will give you a discount on your CD. It could have been, bring us your old CD and we will update your flash drive or ipod or storage device.
We could have been treated like customers and not criminals and been trained to keep sucking on the music teat forever.
Sadly it didn't work like that. Most of us had been recording from the radio for years and sharing music with friends looooooong before the rise of file sharing. Its natural and no one went to jail and there were no threatening letters. Now they want to disrupt decades of learned behavior because the distribution method and format changed and they were not prepared with a business model?
"Both of the boxes look remarkably like "contributory copyright violations" in the making."
By that logic, shouldn't the RIAA be attacking The Fraunhofer Institut in Germany, since that is who holds the patent on the MP3. Or maybe CERN should be sued for creating the www. Or maybe the IP Nazis should wake up and realize the digital age happened while they were counting their pennies.
If this is a free download then how does copyright apply? It's like an author writing something then giving it away to whomever will take it. Can you really stop that? No more creating?
It's not as if the author is making money off of someone else's work. He's just sharing his vision. Can you really stop that in court?
I think Dodd reads TechDIrt. He found some loyal fans in the MPAA. So he connected with his fans and gave them a reason to buy. $1.2 million per year is just showing you that your formula works.
I have to ask... just how can Coming Through the Rye be banned? I mean I get that a judge can keep the author from selling his work, but what if he just gives it away?
I don't think there is a law that says you can't make a derivative and give it away. This is the digital age, so all it takes is one copy to be shared by millions. Let the courts figure that out.
I have to ask... just how can Coming Through the Rye be banned? I mean I get that a judge can keep the author from selling his work, but what if he just gives it away?
I don't think there is a law that says you can't make a derivative and give it away. This is the digital age, so all it takes is one copy to be shared by millions. Let the courts figure that out.
The RIAA and MPAA already have a plan to capture the attention of the digital natives. They have campaigns to teach them that what they have been doing for their whole lives in regard to media is piracy and illegal and that they are all little criminals.
We have to let the digital natives know that they are breaking the law and costing trillions of dollars of damage to the global economy.
Hey average_joe! If dogs can be pets, then why is organized dog fighting not ok?
That makes about as much sense as your question. Just because the claims of economic and job losses are completely bogus, doesn't mean that piracy is ok. It means the claims of economic loss are bogus.
Online piracy (copyright infringement) is currently illegal, just like alcohol was illegal during prohibition. Online copyright infringement is FUELED by the attempts of legacy industries to abusively clamp down on content and disrupt human nature.
This one is simple. No matter how ridiculous those provisions are, any attempt at changing The "Patriot" Act will result in the opposition being cast in the role of anti-Patriotic and unwilling to keep Americans "safe".
" ....allowing them in the original Patriot Act was that they were "needed" in the immediate aftermath of terrorist attacks"
Mike, we are under constant terrorist assault. The reason that politicians won't vote against those provisions in the Patriot Act is because they are AFRAID it will end their political career. They will be branded as not trying to keep America safe. That is HUGE in politics. Forget everything else, it's all about keeping America safe from terrorists.
The sheep need to WAKE UP. It's not the "terrorists" that are killing the most Americans, it's Americans. It's only mid-February and we have roughly 2000 murders in the US so far. Where is the public outrage?
Oh wait, I get it now. We need those provisions in the Patriot Act because we ARE targeting the people that kill the most Americans. I just didn't realize we stopped calling them murderers or psychotics, we call them terrorists now. Well it all makes sense now. Good job.
Conan is just one example and Im sure there are many more coming. The funniest bit is that the old media (gatekeeper) types are doing all the work of strangling themselves.
They keep saying that quality content is impossible to create without them. Somehow they continue to ignore the fact that technology has drastically reduced the costs of production, marketing, and distribution, which has had the effect of putting the artist's in control of their business if they so choose. It also allows for new entrants into a space that has been long dominated by huge corporations, and most likely a few of those new entrants will actually become threats to the old companies.
All of the gatekeepers should, instead of litigating, start taking some notice of the world changing around them and start thinking small and nimble.
Fossil fuels are a finite resource, so improving technology around that fuel isn't the best bet. It simply doesn't matter how well you improve the engine if the fuel it runs on is used up.
Electricity or hydrogen are much better ways to focus on the future. The only people that don't want to see that are the ones that need oil to maintain their wealth.
Companies like Tesla Motors are proving that electric cars are a reality and even the big guys are testing electric cars in developing markets. Betting on oil and internal combustion is a lot like the RIAA and MPAA betting on the internet going away.
This is just comical. The MPAA just has an automated process that targeted Google on accident. They have no intention of threatening or extorting anything from Google. Attacking Google over copyrights would basically be the same as declaring war on the net. The MPAA would then have to threaten Yahoo and Microsoft as well as any other major search engines.
That alone would bring enough of a firestorm on the doorstep of nearly every politician in the world and certainly change A LOT of views about copyright laws. The MPAA doesn't want reductions in copyright laws or to lose any political strength it has right now.
So take it for what it is, a comical mistake that just shows the MPAA has no real clue.
Thought the rape comment was pretty silly, but this guy continues to impress.
"When and only when you can present a strategy of "free" that will benefit the pointless and the useless will you have a model that can successfully replace the traditional role of labels and studios."
So that means that labels exist to benefit the pointless and useless. If nothing else, this AC gets an A for effort when it comes to comedy.
The industry can keep complaining about piracy, but the game has changed and if the industry doesn't accept that, new and more nimble players will emerge and become dominant. It's really that simple.
This is actually a very significant point. The more aggressive the patent system gets, the more powerful opensource becomes. Open office is widely used now and Linux just keeps getting stronger.
The thing is that all the people that "whine" about piracy and infringement are so focused on how to stop the bleeding that they are missing the growth of an industry.
"But Free doesn't work." Tell it to Linux and the consultants that service Linux accounts. Opensource tools are becoming much more widely used and when companies look at free vs licensed, Free is a lot more attractive.
I can't wait for the Free business model to be patented.
Free music CAN pay just as much. Yeah it's not the same as DOES. My broadband CAN go UP TO 20Mb/ sec. Imagine that, dodgy language from a service provider. Sneaky.
In the US there is a free weekly called The Chicago Reader. When it comes out, if you are not fast you won't get a copy. I have no idea whether it's profitable or not, but as a "reader", I look forward to it.
Seems to me if you do it right, free is a very good business model.
This is all quite a bit of political posturing. Watching improperly licensed content via streaming is NOT illegal, it simply doesn't violate any current laws. HADOPI can go after whoever is doing the uploading of the content, but going after the viewers is a nightmare task that is sure to violate any privacy laws that France has in place.
Gatekeepers HATE the web and they are doing everything they can to gain some sort of legal control over it that swings the pendulum. What they don't seem to understand is they are fighting against the wave of human nature and technology. Good luck with that.
I'm sorry, but after reading that article, I think the REAL story is the accurate description of the "traditional" business model for music. It's rare that its spelled out and juxtaposed with alternatives.
"Under the traditional music model, bands create an album, sign their distribution rights to a record label, and the label distributes the music and benefits from the majority of sales."
Soooo, the music industry is largely based on a group of non-musicians getting the majority profit off the musicians they claim to protect. In return they offer marketing and tour support IF they make enough off the musician's music. Effectively they will support the musician's tour with the money the made from the musician.
It almost seemed in that article that they were trying to make a sympathy plea for the record labels by giving us the story of how a weak label starves the musician.
"With the labels not providing adequate marketing and distribution, bands are not sent on tour, so they don't make much money."
While I agree with Mike about CwF + RtB as a viable business model, it seems there is another option and one that the record labels are taking seriously. Since they are losing control of the distribution, they can focus almost entirely on marketing, for which they want a heavy percentage of whatever revenue the musician makes. If bands thought they had it bad when they only made a small percent of their records sales, they are going to love giving up a percentage of their touring and merchandise.
Thanks for the more detailed coverage. It was worth reading and it doesn't appear that there were 300,000+ cases of infringement, but to claim there was no infringement means that you didn't read the article.
Let me assist you, as it seems the infringement was settled right out of the case.
"The proposed agreement settles all alleged copyright infringement liability related to that small minority of unlicenced works that have accumulated over the years."
Assuming that the small amount was willfully infringed, in the US that would mean that the labels owe $30,000 - $150,000 per case of infringement. I would just like to know why all the ACs are not rallying for the cause of the artists. They seem to be keen on people paying up when they know they are breaking the law. It's about making sure the artists get paid, no?
On the post: Record Labels Planning Yet Another Way To Try To Get You To Rebuy Music You Already 'Bought'
One more time for the fun of it
THEY HAD THEIR CHANCE
The music industry had their chance to be friends with us consumers and they blew it. Need a new format for your music? Bring us your old vinyl and we will give you a discount on that cassette. Bring us that old cassette and we will give you a discount on your CD. It could have been, bring us your old CD and we will update your flash drive or ipod or storage device.
We could have been treated like customers and not criminals and been trained to keep sucking on the music teat forever.
Sadly it didn't work like that. Most of us had been recording from the radio for years and sharing music with friends looooooong before the rise of file sharing. Its natural and no one went to jail and there were no threatening letters. Now they want to disrupt decades of learned behavior because the distribution method and format changed and they were not prepared with a business model?
On the post: Sometimes 'Piracy' And Freedom Look Remarkably Similar
Re:
By that logic, shouldn't the RIAA be attacking The Fraunhofer Institut in Germany, since that is who holds the patent on the MP3. Or maybe CERN should be sued for creating the www. Or maybe the IP Nazis should wake up and realize the digital age happened while they were counting their pennies.
On the post: Does Re-Imagining Lord Of The Rings From The Perspective Of Mordor Violate Tolkien's Copyrights?
How does Copyright apply?
It's not as if the author is making money off of someone else's work. He's just sharing his vision. Can you really stop that in court?
On the post: Chris Dodd Breaking Promise Not To Become A Lobbyist Just Weeks After Leaving Senate; Joining MPAA As Top Lobbyist
Ummmm Dodd did what you told him to do Mike
I think Dodd reads TechDIrt. He found some loyal fans in the MPAA. So he connected with his fans and gave them a reason to buy. $1.2 million per year is just showing you that your formula works.
On the post: Tolkien Estate In Legal Spat With Author Of Historical Fiction; Will Publicity Rights Kill Off Historical Fiction?
Ummmm Not Sure about this
I don't think there is a law that says you can't make a derivative and give it away. This is the digital age, so all it takes is one copy to be shared by millions. Let the courts figure that out.
On the post: Tolkien Estate In Legal Spat With Author Of Historical Fiction; Will Publicity Rights Kill Off Historical Fiction?
Ummmm Not Sure about this
I don't think there is a law that says you can't make a derivative and give it away. This is the digital age, so all it takes is one copy to be shared by millions. Let the courts figure that out.
On the post: The Next Generation Of Music Services Need To Go Beyond Replicating The Analog In The Digital World
But..but..but... what about the children?
We have to let the digital natives know that they are breaking the law and costing trillions of dollars of damage to the global economy.
On the post: Can Senator Patrick Leahy Actually Provide The Proof That The COICA Censorship Law Is Needed?
Re: Why are apples NOT Oranges?
That makes about as much sense as your question. Just because the claims of economic and job losses are completely bogus, doesn't mean that piracy is ok. It means the claims of economic loss are bogus.
Online piracy (copyright infringement) is currently illegal, just like alcohol was illegal during prohibition. Online copyright infringement is FUELED by the attempts of legacy industries to abusively clamp down on content and disrupt human nature.
On the post: Senate Extends Controversial Patriot Act Spying Provisions By 90 Days; But Will They Debate Them During That Time?
Seriously?
C'mon, it was named The Patriot Act for a reason.
On the post: As Expected, House Agrees To Extend Patriot Act With No Discussion, No Oversight
Terrorism is ALIVE and WELL !!!
Mike, we are under constant terrorist assault. The reason that politicians won't vote against those provisions in the Patriot Act is because they are AFRAID it will end their political career. They will be branded as not trying to keep America safe. That is HUGE in politics. Forget everything else, it's all about keeping America safe from terrorists.
The sheep need to WAKE UP. It's not the "terrorists" that are killing the most Americans, it's Americans. It's only mid-February and we have roughly 2000 murders in the US so far. Where is the public outrage?
Oh wait, I get it now. We need those provisions in the Patriot Act because we ARE targeting the people that kill the most Americans. I just didn't realize we stopped calling them murderers or psychotics, we call them terrorists now. Well it all makes sense now. Good job.
On the post: How NBC Wanted Conan O'Brien Dump His Twitter Account
It's just too funny
They keep saying that quality content is impossible to create without them. Somehow they continue to ignore the fact that technology has drastically reduced the costs of production, marketing, and distribution, which has had the effect of putting the artist's in control of their business if they so choose. It also allows for new entrants into a space that has been long dominated by huge corporations, and most likely a few of those new entrants will actually become threats to the old companies.
All of the gatekeepers should, instead of litigating, start taking some notice of the world changing around them and start thinking small and nimble.
On the post: DailyDirt: Internal Combustion Ain't Dead Yet
just a bad bet
Electricity or hydrogen are much better ways to focus on the future. The only people that don't want to see that are the ones that need oil to maintain their wealth.
Companies like Tesla Motors are proving that electric cars are a reality and even the big guys are testing electric cars in developing markets. Betting on oil and internal combustion is a lot like the RIAA and MPAA betting on the internet going away.
On the post: MPAA Threatens To Have Google Disconnected From The Internet Over File Sharing?
This is a whole lot of NOTHING
That alone would bring enough of a firestorm on the doorstep of nearly every politician in the world and certainly change A LOT of views about copyright laws. The MPAA doesn't want reductions in copyright laws or to lose any political strength it has right now.
So take it for what it is, a comical mistake that just shows the MPAA has no real clue.
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Wow
"When and only when you can present a strategy of "free" that will benefit the pointless and the useless will you have a model that can successfully replace the traditional role of labels and studios."
So that means that labels exist to benefit the pointless and useless. If nothing else, this AC gets an A for effort when it comes to comedy.
The industry can keep complaining about piracy, but the game has changed and if the industry doesn't accept that, new and more nimble players will emerge and become dominant. It's really that simple.
On the post: And Now Europe Feels The Need To Catch Up To China And The US In The Self-Destructive Patent Race
Re: Re: Re:
The thing is that all the people that "whine" about piracy and infringement are so focused on how to stop the bleeding that they are missing the growth of an industry.
"But Free doesn't work." Tell it to Linux and the consultants that service Linux accounts. Opensource tools are becoming much more widely used and when companies look at free vs licensed, Free is a lot more attractive.
I can't wait for the Free business model to be patented.
On the post: YouTube Notes That Free Music, With Ads, Pays As Well, If Not Better, Than Paid
Re:
On the post: But I Thought Newspapers Couldn't Be 'Free'?
US Version
Seems to me if you do it right, free is a very good business model.
On the post: Hadopi Wants To Kick People Offline For Watching Unauthorized Streams As Well
Political posturing
Gatekeepers HATE the web and they are doing everything they can to gain some sort of legal control over it that swings the pendulum. What they don't seem to understand is they are fighting against the wave of human nature and technology. Good luck with that.
On the post: Band Tries To Take 'Open Source' Lessons To The Music World
The Real Story here
"Under the traditional music model, bands create an album, sign their distribution rights to a record label, and the label distributes the music and benefits from the majority of sales."
Soooo, the music industry is largely based on a group of non-musicians getting the majority profit off the musicians they claim to protect. In return they offer marketing and tour support IF they make enough off the musician's music. Effectively they will support the musician's tour with the money the made from the musician.
It almost seemed in that article that they were trying to make a sympathy plea for the record labels by giving us the story of how a weak label starves the musician.
"With the labels not providing adequate marketing and distribution, bands are not sent on tour, so they don't make much money."
While I agree with Mike about CwF + RtB as a viable business model, it seems there is another option and one that the record labels are taking seriously. Since they are losing control of the distribution, they can focus almost entirely on marketing, for which they want a heavy percentage of whatever revenue the musician makes. If bands thought they had it bad when they only made a small percent of their records sales, they are going to love giving up a percentage of their touring and merchandise.
On the post: Major Record Labels Agree To Pay $45 Million For Copyright Infringement In Canada
Re: Ummm read carefully
Let me assist you, as it seems the infringement was settled right out of the case.
"The proposed agreement settles all alleged copyright infringement liability related to that small minority of unlicenced works that have accumulated over the years."
Assuming that the small amount was willfully infringed, in the US that would mean that the labels owe $30,000 - $150,000 per case of infringement. I would just like to know why all the ACs are not rallying for the cause of the artists. They seem to be keen on people paying up when they know they are breaking the law. It's about making sure the artists get paid, no?
Next >>