I didn't know arguments could be won and lost simply by comparing resumes rather than conducting factual analyses! Man, I've been wasting my time trying to actually discuss things in life. I just need to get to a point where I can comfortably rest on my CV to validate everything that falls out of my skull as empirically true. Thanks for showing me the way, AC!
Look carefully at your favorite artists latest record. Is it still on a standard record label?
I took him up on his offer and grabbed the two most recent CDs I've purchased; States' "Room to Run" (2011) and The Panic Division's "Eternalism" (2012). And looking at the back of each CD case, the copyright on the record is... to the bands. States is composed of members from Copeland and Lydia, both of whom were once on major labels (Universal and Columbia), and The Panic Division were on The Militia Group (a well-respected indie label) for the first half of their career. Interesting how both have eschewed the benefits of having any label involved in their recent work. They must be drunk off the toxic fumes of the new model.
They just synthesize the positions. It's legally a "license" for the purposes of the actual end-user transaction (since it doesn't make sense to place exhaustion rights on a file that can be infinitely replicated), but contractually a "sale" for the purposes of calculating an artist's royalty (since it resembles a phonorecord sale more than, say, a traditional "license" for use in a movie). There's no real conflict between the two if the artist's contract is properly drafted to reflect the latter notion. Eminem's wasn't.
Pretty much. It makes more sense to treat digital transactions as licenses rather than sales because while the files they send you are discrete (resembling the sale of a phonorecord for purposes of a market transaction), they're not subject to the exhaustion that underpins the utility of the first sale doctrine. The Eminem case was more a contractual quirk than anything, a case where language had yet to catch up to market realities.
Up until about a month ago, I'd have agreed -- what would legacy media companies have to gain by engaging the opposition when they already have lobbyists to carry out their agenda? But then the SOPA/PIPA protests happened. The public woke up. And all that lobbying effort was for nothing. Now that the public has been galvanized, the IP industries have to start making strides in the court of public opinion. And to do that, they -will- have to engage. And that's something I welcome with open arms. I don't want them to think I'm leading them into a lion's den. But I also don't want them to think they can just curtly accuse everyone who opposed them of spreading misinformation and not have to walk us through that charge. If they want to win minds, they'll have to start engaging minds.
I'm actually reaching out to Paramount et al to send representatives to my law school later this year for a symposium on international efforts to combat infringement. I want them to identify the scope of the problem (and have reliable data to back up its seriousness), explain the methods being used to address it (justified procedurally and substantively), and prove their efficacy (in light of the SSRC report). I'd love to have Mike there to be on the anti-SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/TPP side, actually. The goal isn't to browbeat one side or the other, but have a serious dialogue about what the data actually says about these issues. Hopefully they're willing to participate.
[Liebowitz has] been making the same claims for years, and I've yet to see a single other economist agree with him. So I have no idea where this "most" comes from. Most of the economic evidence I've seen suggests otherwise.
Have you read Peter Tschmuck's The Economics of Music File Sharing – A Literature Overview? I ask not to challenge your conclusion, but because I know Terry Hart at Copyhype was brandishing it as vindicating Liebowitz. It apparently looks at 22 studies and finds that 14 conclude unauthorized downloads have a “negative or even highly negative impact” on recorded music sales. And according to a comment in the relevant Copyhype post, only two are from Liebowitz. I haven't had time to read the overview or underlying studies myself, but if you have any information/opinions on it, it'd be very helpful to the underlying debate occurring here.
No matter how you want to frame it, the anti-SOPA protests end up being pro-piracy.
Just because you fight for due process doesn't mean you fight for all those who will receive it.
Nobody showed up and said "here is how you fight piracy without X or Y that we don't like", you just all fought the idea from end to end.
Nobody marshaled reliable evidence to demonstrate piracy is a problem that required new tools to fight.
You have to remember that when you push for something, you push for all that comes with it. Going against SOPA means you were pushing on the same side as the pirates.
About as a dumb a sentiment as the Bush-era classic, "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists."
After reading the DoJ's evidence [as summarized by Ars Technica] yesterday, I came to the same conclusion.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that MegaUpload operated in a way that pierces the DMCA shield, whether by specific knowledge of certain infringing works, searching for and downloading infringing works themselves, and uploading specific infringing works themselves. That and the general bluster about their shady corporate culture and internal communications [which reminded me of the complaint filed in the Hotfile case, but on steroids] definitely paints an unsympathetic picture of the defendants. Honestly, if there were any company out there that truly abused the defendant-side DMCA provisions, it was MU, and they probably deserve whatever they have coming if a legitimate case can be made.
Still, I'm worried [as you are] about some of the specific allegations used to try and show intent/conspiracy. Some of those arguments really are Catch 22s [like the presence or absence of a search function], and other features of the site have perfectly legitimate uses [like deleting files after a period of inactivity]. My hope is that the court eventually makes its case against MU while parsing out the red herrings, but hoping for nuance in what began as an ex parte seizure may be a bit naive.
The copyright aspect of this is the least of my concerns. If he actually believes in the content of the op-ed, the least he could do is put it in his own words. The fact that he felt comfortable letting lobbyists almost literally speak through him leads me to question whether or not he even understands what he's writing about.
In a fun bit of confluence, The Fine Bros. (creators of the Kids React series and a perfect example of the kind of independent content producers the Internet has given a platform to) just released a new video explaining their schedule for 2012, and it has the following interesting tidbit in regards to their new large-scale project:
"As long-time viewers know, we've always had dreams to get to television, and now, thanks to all of your support, all of you subscribers sharing our videos, we don't have to wait. We can just make the show ourselves, independently, and it's coming this spring, thanks to YouTube."
It's a brave new world, and I'm incredibly decided to see its bounty -- assuming the legacy gatekeepers don't screw it all up in a Phyrric attempt to save their stagnant business models.
Was waiting for this to get written up. Louis's awesome, and the note absolutely worked on me. Gladly paid him the $5 -- the fact that the system was so nice and simple (on top of affordable) was icing on the hilarious cake. I really hope this shakes out financially for him. Would love to pay for another special in the same manner down the line.
Fantastic analysis, Eric. I share your skepticism re: the need for and efficacy of all these bills, but right now, the main focus needs to be on burying SOPA/PIPA and moving the debate to the OPEN forum, so to speak. Once the worst is safely behind us, then I'm more inclined to attack the underlying fundamentals. Until then, let's just try to restore some sanity to the room.
Man, I have not been paying attention at all -- had no idea Fred jumped ship from the EFF to Google. Good for him. He spoke on a panel at my law school a year or two ago about rogue websites, and I'm pretty sure he was the sole voice of reason between a bunch of studio attorneys who just wanted to shut down every site with UGC. Now THAT event sparked some fireworks. Actual shouting matches! Supremely entertaining.
as a video game player I find it extremely objectionable to give people a pay-to-win advantage
Even if there's no obligation to pay and the benefits of paying can also be gained through normal gameplay? [Extra Credits did a good episode about this, which you might find interesting if you've never seen it.]
Why did that initial figure warrant immediate skepticism? Even if it required in-game currency, plenty of games use their own currency without offering the ability to gather it in-game. As for the amount, I know plenty of people who've shelled out large sums of money for digital goods on other services. My friend has bought over $250 in goods for his character in the free-to-play MMO Dungeon Fighter Online. Quite a few people shelled out for a $79 monocle in Eve Online, blisteringly stupid as it was. There are plenty of businesses that thrive on the sale of virtual goods, and depending on how invested you are in a product, it's not unheard of to spend thousands of dollars for virtual rewards. So no, this was not a news story that warranted immediate skepticism, nor did an intellectual honest update warrant your gleeful mis-extrapolation. But then again, I've seen your comments in every other post on this site, taking twenty seconds per to scrawl down some barely-formed criticism before skulking off to the next trolling destination, so I'm not sure why I bother. Perhaps for posterity.
A "bad idea" and "dangerous" to base an entire business on it, and "risky" without adequate controls and supply-side restraint in place. All he points out is that there are often problems when people fail to recognize that digital goods are not the same as physical goods and cannot always be treated identically. That you fail to see nuance in arguments is nobody's fault but your own.
I've seen people misconstrue the economic arguments for pricing digital [infinite] goods at free or near-free [due to the low or nonexistent marginal cost]. They sometimes think it means that, in a Masnickian world, digital goods must always be priced at or near marginal cost, or bundled with physical [scarce] goods as added-value-only items for the economics to shake out. Of course, that's not the case, and this news item provided a good example to clarify that point with.
A lot of it, I think, has to do with whether you're dealing with an open/closed system or platform. Music, for example, is typically platform-neutral and easily acquired via multiple channels [and in fact, consumers expect the ability to port it to multiple platforms at low or no cost]. When the platform is locked down and centrally controlled, as in a game with a single provider of content who can limit distribution to effectively mimic a scarce good, it absolutely makes sense to leverage the infinite-turned-scarce digital goods if you can. So long as your purchasers valuate it the same way, you're in the clear.
On the post: If You're Going To Compare The Old Music Biz Model With The New Music Biz Model, At Least Make Some Sense
My mind has been opened.
On the post: If You're Going To Compare The Old Music Biz Model With The New Music Biz Model, At Least Make Some Sense
I took him up on his offer and grabbed the two most recent CDs I've purchased; States' "Room to Run" (2011) and The Panic Division's "Eternalism" (2012). And looking at the back of each CD case, the copyright on the record is... to the bands. States is composed of members from Copeland and Lydia, both of whom were once on major labels (Universal and Columbia), and The Panic Division were on The Militia Group (a well-respected indie label) for the first half of their career. Interesting how both have eschewed the benefits of having any label involved in their recent work. They must be drunk off the toxic fumes of the new model.
On the post: Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
Re:
On the post: More Details About Paramount's Offer To Law Schools To Teach Them About The Evils Of 'Content Theft'
Re:
On the post: More Details About Paramount's Offer To Law Schools To Teach Them About The Evils Of 'Content Theft'
Re: Why not?
On the post: NY Times: RIAA & MPAA Exaggerate Piracy Impact Stats... But We're Going To Assume They're True Anyway
Have you read Peter Tschmuck's The Economics of Music File Sharing – A Literature Overview? I ask not to challenge your conclusion, but because I know Terry Hart at Copyhype was brandishing it as vindicating Liebowitz. It apparently looks at 22 studies and finds that 14 conclude unauthorized downloads have a “negative or even highly negative impact” on recorded music sales. And according to a comment in the relevant Copyhype post, only two are from Liebowitz. I haven't had time to read the overview or underlying studies myself, but if you have any information/opinions on it, it'd be very helpful to the underlying debate occurring here.
On the post: The SOPA/PIPA Protests Were Not Pro-Piracy... They Were Anti-Crony Capitalism
Let's break this down real quick.
On the post: Megaupload Details Raise Significant Concerns About What DOJ Considers Evidence Of Criminal Behavior
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that MegaUpload operated in a way that pierces the DMCA shield, whether by specific knowledge of certain infringing works, searching for and downloading infringing works themselves, and uploading specific infringing works themselves. That and the general bluster about their shady corporate culture and internal communications [which reminded me of the complaint filed in the Hotfile case, but on steroids] definitely paints an unsympathetic picture of the defendants. Honestly, if there were any company out there that truly abused the defendant-side DMCA provisions, it was MU, and they probably deserve whatever they have coming if a legitimate case can be made.
Still, I'm worried [as you are] about some of the specific allegations used to try and show intent/conspiracy. Some of those arguments really are Catch 22s [like the presence or absence of a search function], and other features of the site have perfectly legitimate uses [like deleting files after a period of inactivity]. My hope is that the court eventually makes its case against MU while parsing out the red herrings, but hoping for nuance in what began as an ex parte seizure may be a bit naive.
On the post: Once Again, SOPA Supporters Caught 'Copying' Others' Works In An Effort To Shut Down Sites For Copying
On the post: Apparently, Someone Forgot To Tell Reality That The Entertainment Industry Was Dying
Re:
On the post: Apparently, Someone Forgot To Tell Reality That The Entertainment Industry Was Dying
On the post: Is A Naked Danica Patrick Working To Quell GoDaddy Boycott Efforts?
Response to: Rich on Dec 29th, 2011 @ 7:29am
On the post: Louis CK: Connecting With Fans & Giving Them A Reason To Buy By Being Polite, Awesome & Human
On the post: The Good And The Bad Of The New OPEN Bill From Wyden And Issa
On the post: Paul Vixie: SOPA/PIPA Would Be Good For My Business, But I'm Still Against It
On the post: Free To Play Video Game Makes Over $2 Million Selling Just One Item [Update: Or Not]
Re: Re:
Even if there's no obligation to pay and the benefits of paying can also be gained through normal gameplay? [Extra Credits did a good episode about this, which you might find interesting if you've never seen it.]
On the post: Free To Play Video Game Makes Over $2 Million Selling Just One Item [Update: Or Not]
Re: OH, IT'S FANTASY MONEY! Mike's specialty!
On the post: Free To Play Video Game Makes Over $2 Million Selling Just One Item [Update: Or Not]
Re: Against it before you were for it
On the post: Free To Play Video Game Makes Over $2 Million Selling Just One Item [Update: Or Not]
Re:
A lot of it, I think, has to do with whether you're dealing with an open/closed system or platform. Music, for example, is typically platform-neutral and easily acquired via multiple channels [and in fact, consumers expect the ability to port it to multiple platforms at low or no cost]. When the platform is locked down and centrally controlled, as in a game with a single provider of content who can limit distribution to effectively mimic a scarce good, it absolutely makes sense to leverage the infinite-turned-scarce digital goods if you can. So long as your purchasers valuate it the same way, you're in the clear.
Next >>