"It's not innovation, it's piracy pure and simple."
Yeah, sure, because you can't use video streaming services, file sharing services and cyberlockers for anything else but illegal copies...
"Innovation would be someone working WITH the entertainment industry as opposed to distributing illegal copies of someone elses work."
I'm sure Mike would work WITH the entertainment industry if they'd be interested - but they are not.
"Innovation would be someone inventing a means to track all the piracy and send out remittance notices to violators of copyright."
That's not innovation, that's the entertainment industry's wet dream.
"Innovation would be a method for securing digital works to devices owned by one individual."
You really don't understand the nature of bits and bytes, do you?
"Innovation isn't taking something someone else has created and allowing 100,000 people to listen/watch it."
But it's ok if I let my family watch with me, right? And if I invite a friend? Or two? Where's the limit? Ten? Twenty? A hundred? Hmmmm....
"Without original content those services will become the "legacy" internet distribution networks."
From the moment original content (a music track, a movie...) is released (aka converted to 1s and 0s) it has inherently become legacy. There is no way to impede that. And that's not because of lack of effort. It has been tried again and again, but there is no way to tell a zero to be zero ONLY under certain circumstances and disguise as one under others: It is either zero or it is one.
What, people can get off at their stop? Amazing! So if out of an empty subway 50 people get off and another 50 people get on it, you have exactly 0 persons on the subway! It's just amazing what you can do when you eliminate the timeline from the equation!
Uhm, no, sorry. Nobody murdered you - otherwise you would not be writing here. What was murdered was your character/toon or whatever you want to call it. And even that is not true, as I know of no MMO where the "death" of a character is permanent.
Yeah, Diablo 2, you had the hardcore-option where death would be permanent. But I wouldn't consider it an MMO...
"If a movie costs 100 million to make, and you make 100 million copies to sell, you still have to charge $1 plus whatever your distribution costs just to break even. Since the marketplace is NOT infinite (far from it), there is no point where the retail price of a movie should approach zero, even in the most basic economic terms."
What happens once the costs of the movie have been recouped? Wouldn't you say that after that the cost will naturally approach zero?
- I went to the cinema (back in the 70ies) to see Star Wars - twice.
- I bought the VCR.
- I went to the cinema (back in the 90ies) to see the special edition of Episode IV a New Hope aka Star Wars.
- I bought the VCR of the special edition.
- When it - finally - came out, I bought the DVD (of the special edition).
That really was the point where I had to say - now I have paid enough to George for the same thing in an different package all over again.
- I didn't buy the re-release of the special edition including the original edition.
- I didn't buy the blu-ray.
- I won't go to the cinema to see a 3d-version of it.
Enough. Is. Enough.
Once the production costs - even including a "reasonable" profit - have been recouped, how can anyone claim moral high ground that they are still entitled to get paid - again?
"Yes, but that is because you get paid FULLY for your job up front. You don't get 1/1000 of a cent for each use, and have to wait years to actually collect your minimum wage salary. So trying to compare your work for hire to licensing of a movie isn't exactly fair."
Then change the friggin' financing procedure - and do it like kickstarter! Get paid up front!
If George Lucas joined Kickstarter and said "Look, I'm going to make Star Wars VII - Han and Leias escape from retirement home, but I want 300 million dollars up front to produce it. Anyone contributing at least 10 dollars will get a digital copy of the movie" - you can bet he'd make the money within DAYS!
But nooooooooo, we have to keep an outdated business model alive...
"The democractic part is this: If you think the people you elected are screwing you, toss their sorry asses out and replace them."
The problem is: You can't toss them out BEFORE they screw you, unless they try to screw you right before the end of their term - which they usually don't, because they are clever bastards.
The very SYSTEM is broken: You elect someone based on his/her promises. If he/she starts to break said promises you have no means to stop him/her from doing so until the end of term.
In an age of potential instant feedback this is nothing but sad.
There are already representatives for "the vast majority" - they get elected periodically! But they do not act in the interest of said majority. Either because
- they don't know what the majority wants (bad)
- they know what the majority wants but think they know better (worse)
or
- they don't care what the majority wants because they have been bribed (catastrophic)
That's the problem with representative democracy: The (few) representatives can be bought.
But fortunately we live in a time and age where this sort of representation is not needed at all times. While hundred years ago it took a lot of time to count votes, today we have the means to do it instantaneously.
There are already representatives for "the vast majority" - they get elected periodically! But they do not act in the interest of said majority. Either because
It's artists basically saying "fund me/us right now, or you get nothing".
Uhm, that's what all artists who want to make a living out of their art do. The "only" difference is, they say that to us instead of saying it to the couple of studios - which puts the artist in a position of power he or she didn't have before.
Before kickstarter due to the scarcity of studios the studios were the ones dictating the conditions - in most cases to the disadvantage of the artist. Now it's the artist dictating the conditions, because there is no scarcity in potential funders.
1. The chance to find funders has increased.
2. There IS more money availabe, because the middlemen - who took the lion's share of the profit - have been taken out of the equation.
If I was working for a studio, I'd start looking for a new job.
"Yes, that might be true, but any artist needs to eat, and somewhere to sleep."
Never wrote anything against it.
"A "true" researcher is NOT in it for the profit.."
Correct.
"Masnick is in it FOR THE PROFIT, Masnick is NOT a TRUE researcher."
I do not know Mr. Masnick personally so I can't judge his motivations, but many of the things he writes make sense to me - as does this "kickstarter"-story. Could we get back to the story instead of trying to dissect the author?
"In Australia it's called "cash for comments", and it is illegal...."
I don't know the legal situation in Switzerland but to be honest, everybody who writes any sort of publication gets paid one way or the other these days. But what I really abhor are people who write stuff for money that go against their own conviction.
As I stated before, you have to be able to make a living out of it, if you want to dedicate yourself fulltime to your art - but that still does not mean that you have to make more money than needed (for a living) - that's where the monetary profit starts for me: If you get more than it costs to make it, that's a profit.
Of course we could discuss at length what definition the "minimal standard living" is, but that would be pointless. In essence what I mean to say is the following:
The enrichment art brings with it goes far beyond any monetary thought.
"Why yes, I am a 'true artist". Now, can I take your order please?"
Everyone has the right to be an artist, but no one has the right to make a living out of it, neither under the current system, neither under any other system - except if robots did all the work we don't want to do and all of us could spend their time being creative.
A "true" artist is not in it for the profit, he or she is in it for the opportunity to express him- or herself. Sure, to make a living out of it is a necessity, if you want to dedicate yourself fulltime to your art, but to make a profit? No it's not, not for the "true" artist.
It's for the middlemen called studio though... they are not interested in the enrichment of culture, they are interested in the bucks flocking into their pockets.
The investor is people like you and me, who want to see the artist's vision become reality. That's what we get for our investment. I wouldn't want money in return for my investment - just the right to enjoy the artists product from the moment it's finished until the end of my days.
Why are you so focused on profit? Or better - why is your definition of profit so narrow? It's a win-win-situation: The artist gets to make his vision come true, the investor gets to experience the result.
Imagine you bought a car that was effectively produced for twothousand dollars and sold to you for twentythousand. Imagine further that each time you got into your car you had to listen to a voice lecturing you about the proper conduct in traffic - made in a way to suggest that you are considered a potential criminal. And after that you would have to listen for another ten minutes to advertisement for other cars - all this obviously unskippable. And now imagine that EVERY legally available car on this planet was built this way.
Obviously - as you wouldn't like the terms, you wouldn't buy a car, right?
On the post: UK ISPs Lose Their Challenge To The Digital Economy Act; Entertainment Industry Responds Condescendingly
Re:
Yeah, sure, because you can't use video streaming services, file sharing services and cyberlockers for anything else but illegal copies...
"Innovation would be someone working WITH the entertainment industry as opposed to distributing illegal copies of someone elses work."
I'm sure Mike would work WITH the entertainment industry if they'd be interested - but they are not.
"Innovation would be someone inventing a means to track all the piracy and send out remittance notices to violators of copyright."
That's not innovation, that's the entertainment industry's wet dream.
"Innovation would be a method for securing digital works to devices owned by one individual."
You really don't understand the nature of bits and bytes, do you?
"Innovation isn't taking something someone else has created and allowing 100,000 people to listen/watch it."
But it's ok if I let my family watch with me, right? And if I invite a friend? Or two? Where's the limit? Ten? Twenty? A hundred? Hmmmm....
"Without original content those services will become the "legacy" internet distribution networks."
From the moment original content (a music track, a movie...) is released (aka converted to 1s and 0s) it has inherently become legacy. There is no way to impede that. And that's not because of lack of effort. It has been tried again and again, but there is no way to tell a zero to be zero ONLY under certain circumstances and disguise as one under others: It is either zero or it is one.
On the post: Yes, Online And Offline Rules Are Different... Because Online And Offline Are Different
Re: Re: Re: I think this A.C. has a point.
On the post: Yes, Online And Offline Rules Are Different... Because Online And Offline Are Different
Re:
Yeah, Diablo 2, you had the hardcore-option where death would be permanent. But I wouldn't consider it an MMO...
On the post: Yes, Online And Offline Rules Are Different... Because Online And Offline Are Different
Re: I think this A.C. has a point.
Try again.
On the post: Has The Megaupload Shutdown Been Good For The Entertainment Industry?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Has The Megaupload Shutdown Been Good For The Entertainment Industry?
Re: Re: Re:
The Lifespan of such links has always been limited.
On the post: Who Cares If Piracy Is 'Wrong' If Stopping It Is Impossible And Innovating Provides Better Solutions?
Re: Re: And Let's Discuss the REAL Issue
What happens once the costs of the movie have been recouped? Wouldn't you say that after that the cost will naturally approach zero?
- I went to the cinema (back in the 70ies) to see Star Wars - twice.
- I bought the VCR.
- I went to the cinema (back in the 90ies) to see the special edition of Episode IV a New Hope aka Star Wars.
- I bought the VCR of the special edition.
- When it - finally - came out, I bought the DVD (of the special edition).
That really was the point where I had to say - now I have paid enough to George for the same thing in an different package all over again.
- I didn't buy the re-release of the special edition including the original edition.
- I didn't buy the blu-ray.
- I won't go to the cinema to see a 3d-version of it.
Enough. Is. Enough.
Once the production costs - even including a "reasonable" profit - have been recouped, how can anyone claim moral high ground that they are still entitled to get paid - again?
"Yes, but that is because you get paid FULLY for your job up front. You don't get 1/1000 of a cent for each use, and have to wait years to actually collect your minimum wage salary. So trying to compare your work for hire to licensing of a movie isn't exactly fair."
Then change the friggin' financing procedure - and do it like kickstarter! Get paid up front!
If George Lucas joined Kickstarter and said "Look, I'm going to make Star Wars VII - Han and Leias escape from retirement home, but I want 300 million dollars up front to produce it. Anyone contributing at least 10 dollars will get a digital copy of the movie" - you can bet he'd make the money within DAYS!
But nooooooooo, we have to keep an outdated business model alive...
On the post: European Commission Suggests ACTA's Opponents Don't Have 'Democratic Intentions'
Re: Just in general...
On the post: European Commission Suggests ACTA's Opponents Don't Have 'Democratic Intentions'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is: You can't toss them out BEFORE they screw you, unless they try to screw you right before the end of their term - which they usually don't, because they are clever bastards.
The very SYSTEM is broken: You elect someone based on his/her promises. If he/she starts to break said promises you have no means to stop him/her from doing so until the end of term.
In an age of potential instant feedback this is nothing but sad.
On the post: Canadian Universities Agree To Ridiculous Copyright Agreement That Says Emailing Hyperlinks Is Equal To Photocopying
What if?
What if you post a link in a forum and link to that forum in another forum and then tell someone about that forum?
What if I paint a link on the backside of my car?
And what about sms?
What if I write down a link and then post the paper on a board?
On the post: Open Offer To Chris Dodd & Cary Sherman: Meet The Internet Online And In The Open
Re:
There are already representatives for "the vast majority" - they get elected periodically! But they do not act in the interest of said majority. Either because
- they don't know what the majority wants (bad)
- they know what the majority wants but think they know better (worse)
or
- they don't care what the majority wants because they have been bribed (catastrophic)
That's the problem with representative democracy: The (few) representatives can be bought.
But fortunately we live in a time and age where this sort of representation is not needed at all times. While hundred years ago it took a lot of time to count votes, today we have the means to do it instantaneously.
On the post: Open Offer To Chris Dodd & Cary Sherman: Meet The Internet Online And In The Open
Re:
There are already representatives for "the vast majority" - they get elected periodically! But they do not act in the interest of said majority. Either because
a) they don't know what the majority wants (
On the post: People Rushing To Give Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars In Just Hours For Brand New Adventure Game
Re:
Uhm, that's what all artists who want to make a living out of their art do. The "only" difference is, they say that to us instead of saying it to the couple of studios - which puts the artist in a position of power he or she didn't have before.
Before kickstarter due to the scarcity of studios the studios were the ones dictating the conditions - in most cases to the disadvantage of the artist. Now it's the artist dictating the conditions, because there is no scarcity in potential funders.
1. The chance to find funders has increased.
2. There IS more money availabe, because the middlemen - who took the lion's share of the profit - have been taken out of the equation.
If I was working for a studio, I'd start looking for a new job.
If I owned a studio I'd be scared like shit.
On the post: Kickstarter Becomes The Darling Of Sundance By Financing Lots Of Movies... Without Movie Studio Arrogance
Re: Re: Art vs Profit
Never wrote anything against it.
"A "true" researcher is NOT in it for the profit.."
Correct.
"Masnick is in it FOR THE PROFIT, Masnick is NOT a TRUE researcher."
I do not know Mr. Masnick personally so I can't judge his motivations, but many of the things he writes make sense to me - as does this "kickstarter"-story. Could we get back to the story instead of trying to dissect the author?
"In Australia it's called "cash for comments", and it is illegal...."
I don't know the legal situation in Switzerland but to be honest, everybody who writes any sort of publication gets paid one way or the other these days. But what I really abhor are people who write stuff for money that go against their own conviction.
On the post: Kickstarter Becomes The Darling Of Sundance By Financing Lots Of Movies... Without Movie Studio Arrogance
Profit vs Make a living
Of course we could discuss at length what definition the "minimal standard living" is, but that would be pointless. In essence what I mean to say is the following:
The enrichment art brings with it goes far beyond any monetary thought.
On the post: Kickstarter Becomes The Darling Of Sundance By Financing Lots Of Movies... Without Movie Studio Arrogance
The right to be an artist
Everyone has the right to be an artist, but no one has the right to make a living out of it, neither under the current system, neither under any other system - except if robots did all the work we don't want to do and all of us could spend their time being creative.
On the post: Kickstarter Becomes The Darling Of Sundance By Financing Lots Of Movies... Without Movie Studio Arrogance
Art vs Profit
It's for the middlemen called studio though... they are not interested in the enrichment of culture, they are interested in the bucks flocking into their pockets.
The investor is people like you and me, who want to see the artist's vision become reality. That's what we get for our investment. I wouldn't want money in return for my investment - just the right to enjoy the artists product from the moment it's finished until the end of my days.
Why are you so focused on profit? Or better - why is your definition of profit so narrow? It's a win-win-situation: The artist gets to make his vision come true, the investor gets to experience the result.
On the post: Entertainment Industy Back To Demanding That Search Engines Censor The Web... Through 'Voluntary' Measures
Obviously - as you wouldn't like the terms, you wouldn't buy a car, right?
On the post: Megaupload Shutdown Means Other Companies Turning Off Useful Services
Re: Re: Re: It's actually really, really bad
an idiot with a fancier front end!
On the post: Reading 'Go The F**k To Sleep' May Lead To Child Abuse And Racism*
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have two kids myself. What works for one kid does not necessarily work for the other.
Next >>