I'm having a really hard time wrapping my mind around this one.
Wouldn't this cop's reasoning apply anytime a person chooses to be represented by a lawyer when being questioned by police?
Also, what would the cop have done if the man in the video simply turned to the wall or hid his face. They didn't look like they were in custody at the time. Would he have charged them for resisting too, just because they didn't want to be photographed?
TD does not subscribe to that philosophy, or any philosophy for that matter, or so it appears, that cuts against the grain of what it openly advocates in so many of its stories that it tries to pass off as news versus what they actually comprise, editorial opinion.
Techdirt has ALWAYS maintained that it is an opinion blog. Not sure why you think otherwise.
The author of the article would have you accept as fact that a gag order was sought solely because the agency did not like what allegedly happened in a prior case involving another website.
Not really. Did you even read the last paragraph? Mike's opinion was prefaced with: "If it's true that this was truly the reason for the gag order...".
Stories here carry far more persuasive force and resemblance to journalism when pre-publication investigation reaches out to all parties, and not just the lawyer for one party to a matter.
Obviously, you prefer the lazy "he said/she said" style of reporting that pervades mainstream media.
....if someone took and replicated this entire site every day with no links back to you...essentially a mirror, and no attribution...you'd be completely fine with that?
Yes, he would and has been fine with that. There's been a couple of sites that did exactly that. They eventually failed (well, at least I think they did since I can't find them anymore) since they can't compete with the CwF (connect with fans) of the original Techdirt.
Here's what Mike wrote about other sites using Techdirt articles in 2009:
... pretending that David Lowery is the only advocate for musicians out there.
The only time I suspect it's Lowery is when the so-called "musician advocate" cannot debate the actual issues on their merits and resorts to childish insults instead. That's Lowery's modus operandi to a tee. He's nothing more than a schoolyard bully who thinks that yelling louder wins arguments.
Thus far with your use of "pirate boy", "tech douches" and "dolts", I'm putting you in the same category as Lowery. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't really matter if you are actually Lowery or not, your comments are disregarded as insignificant and childish anyways.
But what I would never buy is a car that can be disabled by the manufacturer if they decide they don't want them on the road anymore, they don't like me, or any other reason.
Isn't that basically a built-in feature these days with new cars? They all have some form of OnStar/SYNC/UConnect/etc. in them don't they? I'm pretty sure the ability to kill your car and lock the doors with OnStar exists even if you don't pay for the service.
You people truly have no clue that all you're doing is providing evidence of musician's civil rights being trampled and that this problem is so flippantly viewed.
Ummm...ok.
Care to explain what "civil rights" are being trampled and what "problem" we are being flippant about?
I still do not understand your usage of "unsustainable".
Recorded music is and has always been a small portion of an artist's income. This report on data from musicians themselves shows it to be around 25% or so for pop & rock musicians and even less for those not in the top 5% earning percentiles.
So if the listener is not going to buy it because of the streaming site, then the low royalty rate they pay adds insult to injury.
Again, that's an apple to oranges comparison. That low royalty rate is spread out over many, many years.
Calculate the total royalties for the entire span it's on the streaming service (say 20 years or so) and compare that to a one-time sale and where do you end up?
Whenever I see people using stats to slam streaming services they always leave out the fact that streaming is cumulative and ongoing. Your money keeps flowing in with streaming.
Maybe streaming isn't that great of deal for artists or maybe it is. I don't know because no one can seem to give me an actual apples to apples comparison. Comparing the profit from one month of streaming to one month of sales is meaningless because it doesn't include the cumulative profit over the lifespan of the streaming service.
I fully confess that I've not looked at very many such services and even then it was a few years back, so thing s may be different than my perception.
Same for me. Streaming hasn't caught my fancy either. Since I already have an extensive mp3 library, most of which was ripped from my wife and I's combined CD collections. When you add in the fact that I'm not very impressed with most of today's new music, then streaming just seems like another scam to pay for music I already own.
All these companies knew this was a gray loophole that copyright holders would likely challenge.
Now you did it. You've stepped into a pet peeve of mine....
Following the law as written is not a "loophole". It's following the law as written, no more, no less.
I'm sure you don't consider crossing the street at the crosswalk a "loophole" to jaywalking laws, do you? So why would you frame it like that for laws concerning music?
If you want to do that sort of comparison, you need to cite the figure per listener, not per performance.
Exactly, I see this kind of fuzzy math on that silly Trichordist site all the time: "I'm comparing apples to oranges, so it's quite obvious that the selling price for kumquats is way too low."
The amount streaming services pay is well documented as unsustainable....
I keep seeing this phrase tossed about and I would really like to know you mean by it. Unsustainable for what? Unsustainable to retire upon? Unsustainable to live until a new song is written? Unsustainable for your grandchildren to live on?
By your metrics a CD sale is also "unstaianable" too. Quick back-of-the-napkin math says this:
Price of CD = $15.00 Price per song = $1.25 Lifespan of CD = 10 years Estimated plays a year = 25
$1.25 divided by 250 = 0.005 per play
Then consider that a CD is a one time purchase for most. Streaming is now until forever. Then toss in the fact that a purchase from I-Tunes is also an one time purchase for a file that will never degrade like a CD.
Ugh! So much wrong with these statements. I used to work for an insurance company and believe me, the things I saw!
Ahh, that puts your comments into context.
Suffice it to say that no one has an automatic natural right to possess and operate anything that presents a clear and present danger to the public unless it is used properly and safely.
You don't really understand the term "natural rights", do you?
You forget that compulsory insurance laws came about because of the number of vehicle collisions in which vehicles were damaged beyond repair and people were killed.
Not sure about anywhere else, but compulsory insurance laws came about in my state due to heavy lobbying from insurance companies.
It is irresponsible to refuse to purchase insurance for anything that the rest of us end up being liable for by default.
It's not irresponsible, if I have the funds to cover any liability that occurs. Why was this law changed in my state? Because insurance companies didn't get their cut that way.
And as an aside, since you worked in the insurance company, can you explain why my premium increases if a make a claim? Isn't that what I paid for all these years? Why am I charged more if I actually USE the insurance I pay for?
I think our actual disconnect is more in terms of what we consider to be "government" for this discussion. Criminal enterprises are a form of government.
Perhaps criminal enterprise are a form of government in some senses, but I disagree that they would be considered as such when talking about market systems. Unless they are enforcing regulations for the entire market, they are just a player within the market, looking out only for their own interests and not really caring about the health of the market as a whole.
At any rate, I've spent way too much time trying to decipher economics-speak (and close to giving myself a headache over it to boot). I'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Thanks for the thread - I'm always happy when a discussion motivates me into studying things outside my comfort zone.
I define a "free market" as one in which people can exchange goods and services without coercion. Whether that coercion comes from an official government agency or not is irrelevant.
Your definition isn't what economists use, so that's where our communication failure lies. Economist use "government or state intervention" in terms of regulations, economic policies, subsidies and things like that which effect the market as a whole. Criminal enterprises in black markets are not interested in such things. Their use of violence in black markets is to enforce their property rights (or to remove your property rights), since what they are doing is illegal and not under the protection of property rights enforced by a government.
My original comment to Violynne still stands. Free market capitalism is the default when governments fall. When the Roman Empire fell, people didn't just sit down in the dirt and die or band together to form a commune. They continued to trade their goods and services like always. The blacksmith still traded his wares for food, raw materials and physical protection.
On the post: Cops Arrest Public Defender For Attempting To Do Her Job
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consent
Anyone with half a brain realizes from her tone and attitude that there was an unspoken thought at the end of that sentence, as in:
Please do...(so I can show you how completely wrong you are in open court).
She probably refrained from finishing that sentence because being overly confrontational at that point would have served no useful purpose.
On the post: DailyDirt: These Things Are Not Really Making You Any Smarter, But Try Them Anyway?
Re: Intelligence enhancement
I have a name for that combination: "Breakfast".
On the post: Cops Arrest Public Defender For Attempting To Do Her Job
Wouldn't this cop's reasoning apply anytime a person chooses to be represented by a lawyer when being questioned by police?
Also, what would the cop have done if the man in the video simply turned to the wall or hid his face. They didn't look like they were in custody at the time. Would he have charged them for resisting too, just because they didn't want to be photographed?
On the post: Feds Gagged Google Over Wikileaks Warrants Because They Were 'Upset By The Backlash' To Similar Twitter Warrants
Re: Re: Re:
Techdirt has ALWAYS maintained that it is an opinion blog. Not sure why you think otherwise.
The author of the article would have you accept as fact that a gag order was sought solely because the agency did not like what allegedly happened in a prior case involving another website.
Not really. Did you even read the last paragraph? Mike's opinion was prefaced with: "If it's true that this was truly the reason for the gag order...".
On the post: Feds Gagged Google Over Wikileaks Warrants Because They Were 'Upset By The Backlash' To Similar Twitter Warrants
Re:
Obviously, you prefer the lazy "he said/she said" style of reporting that pervades mainstream media.
Techdirt doesn't subscribe to that philosophy:
Real Reporting Is About Revealing Truth; Not Granting 'Equal Weight' To Bogus Arguments
On the post: YouTube's Offer To Musicians Isn't As Bad As Some Believe, But YouTube Should Still Change Its Policies
Re: Re: Re: Terrible article...
Yes, he would and has been fine with that. There's been a couple of sites that did exactly that. They eventually failed (well, at least I think they did since I can't find them anymore) since they can't compete with the CwF (connect with fans) of the original Techdirt.
Here's what Mike wrote about other sites using Techdirt articles in 2009:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090116/0348223430.shtml
On the post: Get Ready For Classic Songs Of The 50s & 60s To Disappear From Internet Streaming Thanks To Copyright Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re:
The only time I suspect it's Lowery is when the so-called "musician advocate" cannot debate the actual issues on their merits and resorts to childish insults instead. That's Lowery's modus operandi to a tee. He's nothing more than a schoolyard bully who thinks that yelling louder wins arguments.
Thus far with your use of "pirate boy", "tech douches" and "dolts", I'm putting you in the same category as Lowery. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't really matter if you are actually Lowery or not, your comments are disregarded as insignificant and childish anyways.
On the post: DRM Destroys Value: Why Years Old, But DRM Free, Devices Sell For Twice The Price Of New Devices
Re: Re:
Isn't that basically a built-in feature these days with new cars? They all have some form of OnStar/SYNC/UConnect/etc. in them don't they? I'm pretty sure the ability to kill your car and lock the doors with OnStar exists even if you don't pay for the service.
On the post: Get Ready For Classic Songs Of The 50s & 60s To Disappear From Internet Streaming Thanks To Copyright Lawsuits
Re:
Ummm...ok.
Care to explain what "civil rights" are being trampled and what "problem" we are being flippant about?
On the post: Get Ready For Classic Songs Of The 50s & 60s To Disappear From Internet Streaming Thanks To Copyright Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re:
Recorded music is and has always been a small portion of an artist's income. This report on data from musicians themselves shows it to be around 25% or so for pop & rock musicians and even less for those not in the top 5% earning percentiles.
On the post: Get Ready For Classic Songs Of The 50s & 60s To Disappear From Internet Streaming Thanks To Copyright Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re:
Again, that's an apple to oranges comparison. That low royalty rate is spread out over many, many years.
Calculate the total royalties for the entire span it's on the streaming service (say 20 years or so) and compare that to a one-time sale and where do you end up?
Whenever I see people using stats to slam streaming services they always leave out the fact that streaming is cumulative and ongoing. Your money keeps flowing in with streaming.
Maybe streaming isn't that great of deal for artists or maybe it is. I don't know because no one can seem to give me an actual apples to apples comparison. Comparing the profit from one month of streaming to one month of sales is meaningless because it doesn't include the cumulative profit over the lifespan of the streaming service.
On the post: Get Ready For Classic Songs Of The 50s & 60s To Disappear From Internet Streaming Thanks To Copyright Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Same for me. Streaming hasn't caught my fancy either. Since I already have an extensive mp3 library, most of which was ripped from my wife and I's combined CD collections. When you add in the fact that I'm not very impressed with most of today's new music, then streaming just seems like another scam to pay for music I already own.
On the post: Get Ready For Classic Songs Of The 50s & 60s To Disappear From Internet Streaming Thanks To Copyright Lawsuits
Re: Spotify
Now you did it. You've stepped into a pet peeve of mine....
Following the law as written is not a "loophole". It's following the law as written, no more, no less.
I'm sure you don't consider crossing the street at the crosswalk a "loophole" to jaywalking laws, do you? So why would you frame it like that for laws concerning music?
On the post: Get Ready For Classic Songs Of The 50s & 60s To Disappear From Internet Streaming Thanks To Copyright Lawsuits
Re:
Like these articles?
Streaming Will Soon Be More Profitable Than Sales
Streaming Leads to Three Times More Sales Than Radio, Study Finds…
Music Sales Are Up in Sweden. Thank You Spotify!
On the post: Get Ready For Classic Songs Of The 50s & 60s To Disappear From Internet Streaming Thanks To Copyright Lawsuits
Re: Re:
Exactly, I see this kind of fuzzy math on that silly Trichordist site all the time: "I'm comparing apples to oranges, so it's quite obvious that the selling price for kumquats is way too low."
On the post: Get Ready For Classic Songs Of The 50s & 60s To Disappear From Internet Streaming Thanks To Copyright Lawsuits
Re:
I keep seeing this phrase tossed about and I would really like to know you mean by it. Unsustainable for what? Unsustainable to retire upon? Unsustainable to live until a new song is written? Unsustainable for your grandchildren to live on?
By your metrics a CD sale is also "unstaianable" too. Quick back-of-the-napkin math says this:
Price of CD = $15.00
Price per song = $1.25
Lifespan of CD = 10 years
Estimated plays a year = 25
$1.25 divided by 250 = 0.005 per play
Then consider that a CD is a one time purchase for most. Streaming is now until forever. Then toss in the fact that a purchase from I-Tunes is also an one time purchase for a file that will never degrade like a CD.
On the post: New Utah Law Instructs Cops To Seize Uninsured Vehicles
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Safety
Ahh, that puts your comments into context.
Suffice it to say that no one has an automatic natural right to possess and operate anything that presents a clear and present danger to the public unless it is used properly and safely.
You don't really understand the term "natural rights", do you?
You forget that compulsory insurance laws came about because of the number of vehicle collisions in which vehicles were damaged beyond repair and people were killed.
Not sure about anywhere else, but compulsory insurance laws came about in my state due to heavy lobbying from insurance companies.
It is irresponsible to refuse to purchase insurance for anything that the rest of us end up being liable for by default.
It's not irresponsible, if I have the funds to cover any liability that occurs. Why was this law changed in my state? Because insurance companies didn't get their cut that way.
And as an aside, since you worked in the insurance company, can you explain why my premium increases if a make a claim? Isn't that what I paid for all these years? Why am I charged more if I actually USE the insurance I pay for?
On the post: Comcast Kept VIP List For Influential Customers In DC Suburbs, Still Insists Nobody Gets Special Treatment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Comcast Kept VIP List For Influential Customers In DC Suburbs, Still Insists Nobody Gets Special Treatment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps criminal enterprise are a form of government in some senses, but I disagree that they would be considered as such when talking about market systems. Unless they are enforcing regulations for the entire market, they are just a player within the market, looking out only for their own interests and not really caring about the health of the market as a whole.
At any rate, I've spent way too much time trying to decipher economics-speak (and close to giving myself a headache over it to boot). I'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Thanks for the thread - I'm always happy when a discussion motivates me into studying things outside my comfort zone.
On the post: Comcast Kept VIP List For Influential Customers In DC Suburbs, Still Insists Nobody Gets Special Treatment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your definition isn't what economists use, so that's where our communication failure lies. Economist use "government or state intervention" in terms of regulations, economic policies, subsidies and things like that which effect the market as a whole. Criminal enterprises in black markets are not interested in such things. Their use of violence in black markets is to enforce their property rights (or to remove your property rights), since what they are doing is illegal and not under the protection of property rights enforced by a government.
My original comment to Violynne still stands. Free market capitalism is the default when governments fall. When the Roman Empire fell, people didn't just sit down in the dirt and die or band together to form a commune. They continued to trade their goods and services like always. The blacksmith still traded his wares for food, raw materials and physical protection.
Next >>