The actual problem is that your argument makes another assumption in the first place. You assume that by utilizing an alternate method, this artist could make more money? If that assumption is not the case, then your argument is meaningless because it won't matter either way.
If the amount of money spent on art is decreasing, then the only logical thing to do to get more of that pot is to increase your efficiency so that you get more of it. There is absolutely NO reason to be less efficient if the problem is a market reduction. The only time when less efficiency is market sustainable is when the market is rapidly expanding.
This is where your reasoning falls. Now, as to whether the poster's conclusion that more artists can make a living is accurate. That, I couldn't tell you, but...the potential is there. Certainly, by being more efficient, he has created more breathing room for himself.
The old system wasn't reliable...the industry just liked getting to be the lightning - whoever they struck made it. Now, hard work and effort actually has a measurable difference. Nonetheless, there is a threshold of talent/ability that has to be met by the artist to make it in this new world - something that wasn't necessarily true in the old...
The music world is changing...now talented artists have an advantage over AutoTune/good looks...
Last I checked, wood, rope, cloth, and cable were not abstract ideas combined into a single thing...the plane was an abstraction and an implementation that was unique from its predecessors.
The implementation factor is key to patents. It takes a specific implementation to be guarded by a patent.
Re: Re: Same tactic taken with the healthcare billl
That is true. I think that the grandparent was trying to make the point that congress DID pull an end-run around the normal process to pass the bill...
I think I may have you beat...I watched, I think, during the winter olympics this year, about a total of 4 hours spread into probably two weeks...and that's been my peak usage for years...I only watch things that I can get on Hulu rather than waste my time watching stuff on TV at weird, inconvenient times. Most nights, I watch nothing at all...but when I do, I want to watch the shows that I want. I have no desire to plan my week around a TV show.
Dang it...do I have to be explicit 100% of the time? LOL...I hate that...I was trying to use the first-person to clarify the general feeling that I get from people around me along with my own personal feeling. Whereas I tend to keep pretty well informed of stuff, I do realize that most people around me do not. At the same time, however, I am not the only person that feels a little jaded with our current court system.
The issue with what you state is that most people do not have the time or patience to learn about every single subject they are interested in. Ok, that's understandable. I also would not want to discuss some things with those people because they wouldn't have an inkling of what is going on around them. However, I don't completely feel that such is the case on this site (certainly, there are those people that seem clueless, but I have long felt that most people here at least grasp reality somewhat).
It still bothers me that even those of us who do take time to research the things we care about so that we aren't completely in the dark still don't know enough to be considered knowledgeable about the system...and those that don't take the time are just plain screwed.
Somehow, I am still under the impression that this system was never intended to work out this way. It was intended for the common man (ahem...wealthy, "landed", middle-class, if not upper-class man) to understand and be able to deal with this type of thing. The fact that many still do not is where I am a bit concerned...truth be told. The government system was never designed to be a true democracy (lower-class citizens were never really intended to be voters in its original context...something that has completely changed the way that the system now works), yet, we wield it as if it were.
No, I will be the first to admit that I do not know all the nuances of every stinking law out there, but I do know enough to get by. Yet, that 'enough' is, seemingly, not enough...
I understand that you are quite a bit more informed than just about all of us here, but we comment because this matters to us. We feel controlled, bullied, and victimized by this system, so its intricacies matter a GREAT deal to us. It doesn't matter that we need this system to keep order. What matters to us is what we see as injustice or abuse. So, we look at this system from the outside, knowing that, one day, we could potentially be under the heel of such a system.
Ya...its a big deal. As to how much we know...doesn't it bother you that citizens aren't privy to the knowledge of how their own government works?
Actually, I've always struggled with this concept...because the means by which they determine which "expert" to trust must come from one of only a few things - either the evidence presented before them in court alone (which is difficult to do in cases where there are experts on both sides), evidence from outside the courtroom (which the juror swears not to use), or a mix of both, whether consciously or not (which, I would submit, is the most likely of the three).
I can't help thinking that the average (I guess in this particular case, I mean 'every') juror would NEED outside knowledge of some sort in order to evaluate whether or not one of the "experts" is more trustworthy than the other. Otherwise, you are left to evaluations based on charisma or some other less-than-desirable characteristic.
You do realize that there weren't very many serious attempts at it for three years because Sony was tight-lipped about firmware and hardware info, threatened legal action, and touted its impossible-to-crack nature? Also, geohotz said he spent maybe 3 weeks on it, including research before cracking it...not a really long time at all...I think this is a case where only a small number of people were even attampting to create a crack...
The issue is not so much that a state has the right to secede, but whether or not it will cause the rest of the union to invade and forcibly cause a rejoining as happened in the Civil War. Personally, I don't think secession is viable in most cases because the backlash over the secession from the citizens living in the state could be crippling. Even in Texas (I'm a native) where I think the loyalty to the state over the union is probably the strongest (I have heard that Virginians also have similar loyalty, but I don't know this first-hand), I think there are enough non-natives and city folk that don't have the same sense of loyalty. I think there could be just enough of those to cause in-state civil war in the case of a secession...just my two cents.
Definitely agreed. Just barring people from doing anything without explaining the reasoning behind your decisions seems to cause nearly as much of a problem as the issue you were trying to prevent in the first place - i.e. trying to shelter your kids from .
All rudeness aside. Your friend's situation is merely anecdotal - not valid as good evidence.
I know Mike ran an article about a study a while back that showed that P2P traffic was not nearly as high as claimed by those who would benefit from such (i.e. ISPs discussing bandwidth caps or entertainment industry people discussing the amount of P2P use).
I ran a google search on 'study p2p traffic amount' and found this right at the beginning of the results (first link was more of a paper than an easy to read article...I hate posting thick reading like that): Zeropaid Article on P2P traffic
Looking for Mike's article, I found this, but I couldn't find the one I vaguely remembered: Techdirt Article
I agree that it would be a concern; however, I don't think they would be the first company to screw artists...in fact, I don't think you are being fair as the current labels are not nearly as artist-friendly as you make them out to be.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out...
If everyone downloads, nobody buys. There might as well have been shoplifitng[sic], because the effects are the same, no sales.
Sorry Anti-Mike, but the reality is really this:
Since when does everyone download!?!? Those record box-office sales and the fact that people still buy DVDs, CDs, digital music, etc. despite the ridiculousness of pricing distribution methods is indicative of the fact that not everyone is downloading. More importantly, it shows that there is a huge current of people that are willing to pay those prices to get that entertainment value (remember from economics 101, even this makes sense as someone is always willing to pay no matter the price).
Not selling it isn't a choice to force people to P2P, it is to stop wasting money in a market that isn't buying. Australia is a very small market. If their legal system is going to permit unlimited piracy, why would anyone want to retail in that market?
The fact that people are still willing to buy at current prices should indicate to you and those in charge of these media companies that there is a semblance of a market out there. In fact, a good market response to this slack in demand would be to adjust pricing and supply to match, then to find a new product or a new way to sell the product to match the market (I learned that in economics 101 and it's played out for me in real life every day, where the hell did you go to school that it's so different for you?!?!?). Obviously, there is a demand for something else that these media companies FAIL to recognize and/or acknowledge. Companies that fail to deal with these kinds of market forces fail.
My feeling is you would see movies in theaters, maybe on pay per view, and that would be it. No retail, no rentals (movie not available in the market, importing for rental would be actionable), no nothing. If the people are going to P2P anyway, why bother getting into the market?
Further, it would greatly hurt the Australian home market business. With such a small marketplace, the income from retail sales of DVDs and such is very important. Without a vibrant retail market, the funds to produce Aussie films would disappear, and with it an entire industry.
You are correct in stating that the revenue derived from DVDs is shrinking. However, I don't think it's fair to say that this market is needed to hold up the entire industry...we've had multiple studies show that revenue from other avenues and products is increasing. Making a jump from saying that failing DVD revenue is the cause of a failing industry is jumping to conclusions. Perhaps customers no longer value DVDs at the prices they are sold for? For example, I know of a number of people that no longer buy DVDs because they find NetFlix streamed into their home a far greater value. Thus, there are other possible explanations that have not been addressed properly. Making conclusions that piracy or anything else is killing business without addressing such explanations is actually rather disingenuous.
They are isolated enough that they could show us all exactly what happens when you remove the income from the movie industry.
This is perhaps true. I would think that the results could be significant, but I, personally, wouldn't go so far as saying exactly...somehow, I feel that the American entertainment industry has much deeper pockets perhaps than their Australian counterparts...that could change the game, no?
Theft and infringement has the same results: Someone has what they didn't pay for, and the owners have one less potential sale. Since everyone keeps telling is here that reproduction costs are so low, the stealing of the physical DVD isn't really the big part of the discussion, unless you want to change things and say the plastic disc is a significant part of the retail price.
As a moral person, I have to agree that infringement results in a moral dilemma; however, as a rational person, I am concerned that equating infringement with stealing is completely irrational. The problem is actually one of "Counting chickens before they hatch". Potential sales are not reliably countable. Conditions change, marketing equations become obsolete quickly (assuming they were reliable and accurate in the first place), Consumer demand shifts. Stating that infringement results in a lost sale is either blindness or an outright lie. At the very least, it is an extremely weak argument that does not hold up under inspection - there is no evidence to support it and plenty of evidence both logically and through numerous studies supporting that logic to refute it.
Interestingly, your method of evaluating whether something is stolen is rather unique. I have heard in contrast that something is stolen when you no longer have the original item to sell. I'm more liable to agree with that second notion as I can't see making a copy of something even without permission being equated with stealing. However, such is really a philosophical discussion and I haven't really heard any convincing arguments for any good line-in-the-sand differentiation that would provide the needed clarity for this debate.
I think it's ok to use this reasoning with the government as opposed to individuals since the government is actually, supposedly, accountable to individual citizens. That's a very interesting problem however.
You may have encountered the rogue IT guy that really doesn't understand how to do his job well...possibly...then again, like others have said, part of IT is controlling what you do as a user so that you don't slow down the jobs of everyone else. IT policies protect the rest of the employees from the users that are arrogant enough to believe that they don't need security - the very employees that oftentimes need it most.
The problem isn't flash so much. It's the fact that you have a netbook...the Atom processor isn't capable of doing much more than just plain booting up Windows (yes, a slight under-exaggeration...)...most netbooks are barely capable of handling email and internet browsing, much less flash, javascript or silverlight. More importantly, if something is just BARELY able to handle something, that generally spells problems when you run across something that's just a little more intensive or poorly coded than usual...and, honestly, Video is one of the hardest things for computers to handle.
On the post: Photographer Makes One-Third Of His Living Expenses Off Only 94 Fans
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Living?
If the amount of money spent on art is decreasing, then the only logical thing to do to get more of that pot is to increase your efficiency so that you get more of it. There is absolutely NO reason to be less efficient if the problem is a market reduction. The only time when less efficiency is market sustainable is when the market is rapidly expanding.
This is where your reasoning falls. Now, as to whether the poster's conclusion that more artists can make a living is accurate. That, I couldn't tell you, but...the potential is there. Certainly, by being more efficient, he has created more breathing room for himself.
On the post: How Third Party Liability Can Stifle An Industry
Re: Re: Right
On the post: RIAA Insists That Musicians Can't Make Money Without The RIAA
Re: Re: brand name recognition etc.
The music world is changing...now talented artists have an advantage over AutoTune/good looks...
On the post: Infamous Check Scanning Patents, That Senators Tried To Bury, Wins First Lawsuit
Re: Is nothing worthy of a patent?
The implementation factor is key to patents. It takes a specific implementation to be guarded by a patent.
On the post: UK House Of Commons On Digital Economy Bill: We'll Approve Now, Debate Later?
Re: Re: Same tactic taken with the healthcare billl
On the post: Why TV Everywhere Will Fail: Because It's Based On Taking Away Value, Not Adding It
Re: Re: So because little mikee says so
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The issue with what you state is that most people do not have the time or patience to learn about every single subject they are interested in. Ok, that's understandable. I also would not want to discuss some things with those people because they wouldn't have an inkling of what is going on around them. However, I don't completely feel that such is the case on this site (certainly, there are those people that seem clueless, but I have long felt that most people here at least grasp reality somewhat).
It still bothers me that even those of us who do take time to research the things we care about so that we aren't completely in the dark still don't know enough to be considered knowledgeable about the system...and those that don't take the time are just plain screwed.
Somehow, I am still under the impression that this system was never intended to work out this way. It was intended for the common man (ahem...wealthy, "landed", middle-class, if not upper-class man) to understand and be able to deal with this type of thing. The fact that many still do not is where I am a bit concerned...truth be told. The government system was never designed to be a true democracy (lower-class citizens were never really intended to be voters in its original context...something that has completely changed the way that the system now works), yet, we wield it as if it were.
No, I will be the first to admit that I do not know all the nuances of every stinking law out there, but I do know enough to get by. Yet, that 'enough' is, seemingly, not enough...
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ya...its a big deal. As to how much we know...doesn't it bother you that citizens aren't privy to the knowledge of how their own government works?
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can't help thinking that the average (I guess in this particular case, I mean 'every') juror would NEED outside knowledge of some sort in order to evaluate whether or not one of the "experts" is more trustworthy than the other. Otherwise, you are left to evaluations based on charisma or some other less-than-desirable characteristic.
On the post: Can You Still Say DRM Is Effective When It Creates Security Vulnerabilities, Performance Degradation, Incompatibilities, System Instability And 'Other Issues'? [Update]
Re: Re: *snort*
On the post: NBC's Delayed Telecasts Show A Company Living In The Last Century
Re: Re: Re: It's about courtesy
On the post: My Comments To The USTR On Special 301 Report On Foreign Copyright Issues
Re: writing to USTR
On the post: Incumbents Blocking Broadband Stimulus Efforts Because They Don't Like Competition
Re: Re: Succession isn't an option
On the post: Why Shouldn't Jurors Be Able To Use Technology To Do More Research?
Re: Re: Re: Evidence admissibility
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know Mike ran an article about a study a while back that showed that P2P traffic was not nearly as high as claimed by those who would benefit from such (i.e. ISPs discussing bandwidth caps or entertainment industry people discussing the amount of P2P use).
I ran a google search on 'study p2p traffic amount' and found this right at the beginning of the results (first link was more of a paper than an easy to read article...I hate posting thick reading like that):
Zeropaid Article on P2P traffic
Looking for Mike's article, I found this, but I couldn't find the one I vaguely remembered:
Techdirt Article
On the post: Is Spotify Looking To Enable CwF+RtB For Musicians?
Re: More thoughts on this...
It will be interesting to see how this plays out...
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry Anti-Mike, but the reality is really this:
Since when does everyone download!?!? Those record box-office sales and the fact that people still buy DVDs, CDs, digital music, etc. despite the ridiculousness of pricing distribution methods is indicative of the fact that not everyone is downloading. More importantly, it shows that there is a huge current of people that are willing to pay those prices to get that entertainment value (remember from economics 101, even this makes sense as someone is always willing to pay no matter the price).
The fact that people are still willing to buy at current prices should indicate to you and those in charge of these media companies that there is a semblance of a market out there. In fact, a good market response to this slack in demand would be to adjust pricing and supply to match, then to find a new product or a new way to sell the product to match the market (I learned that in economics 101 and it's played out for me in real life every day, where the hell did you go to school that it's so different for you?!?!?). Obviously, there is a demand for something else that these media companies FAIL to recognize and/or acknowledge. Companies that fail to deal with these kinds of market forces fail.
You are correct in stating that the revenue derived from DVDs is shrinking. However, I don't think it's fair to say that this market is needed to hold up the entire industry...we've had multiple studies show that revenue from other avenues and products is increasing. Making a jump from saying that failing DVD revenue is the cause of a failing industry is jumping to conclusions. Perhaps customers no longer value DVDs at the prices they are sold for? For example, I know of a number of people that no longer buy DVDs because they find NetFlix streamed into their home a far greater value. Thus, there are other possible explanations that have not been addressed properly. Making conclusions that piracy or anything else is killing business without addressing such explanations is actually rather disingenuous.
This is perhaps true. I would think that the results could be significant, but I, personally, wouldn't go so far as saying exactly...somehow, I feel that the American entertainment industry has much deeper pockets perhaps than their Australian counterparts...that could change the game, no?
As a moral person, I have to agree that infringement results in a moral dilemma; however, as a rational person, I am concerned that equating infringement with stealing is completely irrational. The problem is actually one of "Counting chickens before they hatch". Potential sales are not reliably countable. Conditions change, marketing equations become obsolete quickly (assuming they were reliable and accurate in the first place), Consumer demand shifts. Stating that infringement results in a lost sale is either blindness or an outright lie. At the very least, it is an extremely weak argument that does not hold up under inspection - there is no evidence to support it and plenty of evidence both logically and through numerous studies supporting that logic to refute it.
Interestingly, your method of evaluating whether something is stolen is rather unique. I have heard in contrast that something is stolen when you no longer have the original item to sell. I'm more liable to agree with that second notion as I can't see making a copy of something even without permission being equated with stealing. However, such is really a philosophical discussion and I haven't really heard any convincing arguments for any good line-in-the-sand differentiation that would provide the needed clarity for this debate.
On the post: UK Gov't Tells MPs They Can't See ACTA Details
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Should IT Be Run As A Business?
Re: Simply put
On the post: Rob Glaser Leaving RealNetworks; A Chance To Reflect On How Being Anti-Consumer Fails In The Long Run
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>