I never said I don't know what goes on inside the music business. I've actually done a moderate amount of research into the subject. I said I wasn't *in* it. From the outside, most of you ProIP people look awfully foolish.
What I meant by the paragraph you quoted (without my permission, you pirate!) is that you can focus on the people who don't want to pay you, but chances are you won't convince them, as they were never your customer. OR you can focus on the people who are already giving you money, and make them want to give you *more* money.
Further, you can leverage the pirates to act as free marketing, since they probably weren't going to give you money anyway, to bring in more people who *are* willing to give you money.
I am not in the recording business, nor the music business. I am in a field that is much less risky than the entertainment business. But it's good that you understand that you are in a business, and that not all businesses survive. You are not entitled to make money just because you learned a few power chords and can scream into a microphone. You are entitled to the chance to try.
Did you know that, back when Record Labels shipped vinyl records all over the country, they used to *factor in* the chance that a few would break during shipment. One in every 10, they said. Had they dumped millions of dollars into making sure not a single record broke, it would be a waste of their money, because they could never achieve their goal. After all, some things you just can't change, and you have to accept. Now there is piracy, and it is inevitable. For whatever their reasons, some people don't feel the need to buy a non-scarce product. You can tilt at all the windmills you'd like for as long as you want, but it's not going to change. So, accept it. Factor it in. Or, just maybe, use it to your advantage.
Normally I ignore people who type more than two words in all caps, but you seem to have a pretty good head on your shoulders, so I read anyway.
Although not in the constitution, the supreme court (among others) *have* said that we not only have a right to travel but also, we have a right to fly. More specifically:
A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedurethat will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for
handicapped individuals.
Re: Hi Mike guard dog.. I dont have to make anything up, Mike does that for me.
First off, I'd like to tell you that for the short(ish) time you've been posting here, I've always tried not to point out your horrible writing style because I assumed English was your second language. I stand corrected.
Back on topic: You seem to think Mike somehow said that the US way is the only way. Since he *actually* said that the US way didn't make much sense, I really can't see what you're frothing at the mouth, presumably like a rabid, baby-eating dingo, about.
Your last line is pretty amazing, since other people (at least two) have taken the time to retype the sentences from the links in Mike's post (which, apparently you didn't bother to do) to show you that you have the facts (that you like to check?) wrong.
Back off topic: There is a link after each post that says "Reply to this" (by default blue) that you should click when replying. I know, it's hard to stop and click the link when you've misread (or misunderstood?) something that sends you in a crocodile-like rage, but it does help make sense of things on this end of the tubes.
Can't wait to see this new "model" that will work for every artist
I really believe that this single idea is what is causing the most friction in this new digital landscape for the industry. There is no "silver bullet" for making money in the music industry anymore. You actually have to be creative and unique to be successful (and talented, don't forget that!) and what works for one artist may not work for another.
It is sad that the demand for creativity in a industry that is supposedly built around it causes such trouble.
work when they are no longer a band.
It's already been slapped down twice, but I just can't pass it up. Really? This single sentence (demand? requirement?) does a excellent job highlighting the rampant entitlism in the music industry. (or, perhaps more specifically, the recording industry?) Thinking like this is an excellent way to disconnect yourself from your fans, most-- if not all-- of whom have to work every day to get paid. When you are disconnected from your fans they will not feel bad for pirating your music and certainly won't want to give you money. (Note: This is bad.)
Were they checking him for explosives, or perhaps a gun? All the has to do is push forward and everyone dies. In fact, maybe pilots *should* carry guns and in return we can bring bottled water on the plane.
How many signs have you seen on store windows that say they will not serve you if you aren't wearing shoes? We should demand store neutrality! How dare they require me to wear only clothing they deem acceptable before they will take my hard earned money??
Oh, that's right, because except for a few exceptions, businesses can refuse service to whomever they like for whatever reason they like. On or off the interwebs.
Oh, I typed "Carla Franklin is a whore" without quotes.
Interesting side note: If I type "Carla Franklin is a whore without quotes" (without quotes) google asks if I meant "Carl Franklin is a whore" and returns 225,000 hits.
There's little doubt that the youtube poster was infringing by posting the clip.
Not so careful, are you?
Even if it was fair use for 20/20 to use the clips, how do you know it was fair use for the poster who put the clips on youtube?
As far as UMG is concerned, it doesn't matter.
I just do it because I enjoy pointing out Mike's errors. Sad, I know.
..so when are you going to start doing that? (and: Really? Dude, you need help. Like, professional help. It's not sad, it's pathetic. If you had any credibility before, you've lost it now.)
Since I now know that your dogmatic comments are solely to troll, (vs. you being misguided but willing to learn) don't expect any further comments from me.
There's little doubt that the youtube poster was infringing by posting the clip.
So, you feel it is more likely that someone had a VHS with this 20/20 episode on it, and decided to get it digitalized to post it on youtube vs. that the copyright holder actually posted it?
IF? Don't you mean "Since 20/20 obviously didn't post the video on youtube"? What's that? You don't even know who posted it, you just feel that it must be copyright infringement? Very strange.
The point is that UMG said "Hey, that infringes on our copyright" and it *didn't*. It didn't because if it was fair use enough to air on TV (as it did) then just because a different medium was used to get it to eyeballs doesn't make it no longer fair use.
As for the emails, when/if they get old, I auto-archive them. No biggie, sure beats sitting at a computer all day hitting the refresh button just to troll a blogger you don't agree with. I sure hope you're paid by the hour.
On the post: Why Won't Universal Music Let You See The 20/20 Report From 1980 About How The Music Industry Is Dying?
Re: Re: Re:
What I meant by the paragraph you quoted (without my permission, you pirate!) is that you can focus on the people who don't want to pay you, but chances are you won't convince them, as they were never your customer. OR you can focus on the people who are already giving you money, and make them want to give you *more* money.
Further, you can leverage the pirates to act as free marketing, since they probably weren't going to give you money anyway, to bring in more people who *are* willing to give you money.
On the post: Why Won't Universal Music Let You See The 20/20 Report From 1980 About How The Music Industry Is Dying?
Re:
I am not in the recording business, nor the music business. I am in a field that is much less risky than the entertainment business. But it's good that you understand that you are in a business, and that not all businesses survive. You are not entitled to make money just because you learned a few power chords and can scream into a microphone. You are entitled to the chance to try.
Did you know that, back when Record Labels shipped vinyl records all over the country, they used to *factor in* the chance that a few would break during shipment. One in every 10, they said. Had they dumped millions of dollars into making sure not a single record broke, it would be a waste of their money, because they could never achieve their goal. After all, some things you just can't change, and you have to accept. Now there is piracy, and it is inevitable. For whatever their reasons, some people don't feel the need to buy a non-scarce product. You can tilt at all the windmills you'd like for as long as you want, but it's not going to change. So, accept it. Factor it in. Or, just maybe, use it to your advantage.
On the post: Pilot Not Allowed Through Security After He Refuses 'Naked' Backscatter Scan
Re: Re: Re:
Although not in the constitution, the supreme court (among others) *have* said that we not only have a right to travel but also, we have a right to fly. More specifically:
So, does this change your view on the topic?
On the post: Visiting Australia? Make Sure You Tell The Customs Officials About The Porn On Your Hard Drive
Re: Hi Mike guard dog.. I dont have to make anything up, Mike does that for me.
Back on topic: You seem to think Mike somehow said that the US way is the only way. Since he *actually* said that the US way didn't make much sense, I really can't see what you're frothing at the mouth, presumably like a rabid, baby-eating dingo, about.
Your last line is pretty amazing, since other people (at least two) have taken the time to retype the sentences from the links in Mike's post (which, apparently you didn't bother to do) to show you that you have the facts (that you like to check?) wrong.
Back off topic: There is a link after each post that says "Reply to this" (by default blue) that you should click when replying. I know, it's hard to stop and click the link when you've misread (or misunderstood?) something that sends you in a crocodile-like rage, but it does help make sense of things on this end of the tubes.
Thanks.
On the post: Why Won't Universal Music Let You See The 20/20 Report From 1980 About How The Music Industry Is Dying?
Re:
I really believe that this single idea is what is causing the most friction in this new digital landscape for the industry. There is no "silver bullet" for making money in the music industry anymore. You actually have to be creative and unique to be successful (and talented, don't forget that!) and what works for one artist may not work for another.
It is sad that the demand for creativity in a industry that is supposedly built around it causes such trouble.
work when they are no longer a band.
It's already been slapped down twice, but I just can't pass it up. Really? This single sentence (demand? requirement?) does a excellent job highlighting the rampant entitlism in the music industry. (or, perhaps more specifically, the recording industry?) Thinking like this is an excellent way to disconnect yourself from your fans, most-- if not all-- of whom have to work every day to get paid. When you are disconnected from your fans they will not feel bad for pirating your music and certainly won't want to give you money. (Note: This is bad.)
On the post: Pilot Not Allowed Through Security After He Refuses 'Naked' Backscatter Scan
Re: Obligatory...
On the post: Pilot Not Allowed Through Security After He Refuses 'Naked' Backscatter Scan
Re: Re: Really
Were they checking him for explosives, or perhaps a gun? All the has to do is push forward and everyone dies. In fact, maybe pilots *should* carry guns and in return we can bring bottled water on the plane.
On the post: Pilot Not Allowed Through Security After He Refuses 'Naked' Backscatter Scan
Re: Re: Re: Fun with the TSA
Did you know that you can't have gel insoles in your shoes? But, that 7 inch flathead screwdriver-- yeah, that's got a green light.
Fake security pisses me off.
On the post: Why Won't Universal Music Let You See The 20/20 Report From 1980 About How The Music Industry Is Dying?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google Told To Reveal IP Addresses Of Mean YouTube Commenters
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Fox Extends Cablevision Blackout To Hulu... Temporarily
Re: Re: Re:
There is no law that says you have to wear shoes.
How many signs have you seen on store windows that say they will not serve you if you aren't wearing shoes? We should demand store neutrality! How dare they require me to wear only clothing they deem acceptable before they will take my hard earned money??
Oh, that's right, because except for a few exceptions, businesses can refuse service to whomever they like for whatever reason they like. On or off the interwebs.
On the post: Google Told To Reveal IP Addresses Of Mean YouTube Commenters
Re: Re: Re:
Interesting side note: If I type "Carla Franklin is a whore without quotes" (without quotes) google asks if I meant "Carl Franklin is a whore" and returns 225,000 hits.
Poor Carl, he's the real victim here.
On the post: Gene Simmons Now Wants To Throw 'Anonymous' In Jail
Re: WTF?
So, lemme get the straight, Gene.
Copyright infringement = bad
DDOS attacks = bad
Rape = okay?
He just trolled the world.
On the post: Gene Simmons Now Wants To Throw 'Anonymous' In Jail
WTF?
On the post: Google Told To Reveal IP Addresses Of Mean YouTube Commenters
Re: Re:
On the post: Google Told To Reveal IP Addresses Of Mean YouTube Commenters
Re:
On the post: Why Won't Universal Music Let You See The 20/20 Report From 1980 About How The Music Industry Is Dying?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Won't Universal Music Let You See The 20/20 Report From 1980 About How The Music Industry Is Dying?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Analysis of Fair Use?
From another comment by you:
There's little doubt that the youtube poster was infringing by posting the clip.
Not so careful, are you?
Even if it was fair use for 20/20 to use the clips, how do you know it was fair use for the poster who put the clips on youtube?
As far as UMG is concerned, it doesn't matter.
I just do it because I enjoy pointing out Mike's errors. Sad, I know.
..so when are you going to start doing that? (and: Really? Dude, you need help. Like, professional help. It's not sad, it's pathetic. If you had any credibility before, you've lost it now.)
Since I now know that your dogmatic comments are solely to troll, (vs. you being misguided but willing to learn) don't expect any further comments from me.
On the post: Why Won't Universal Music Let You See The 20/20 Report From 1980 About How The Music Industry Is Dying?
Re: Re:
So, you feel it is more likely that someone had a VHS with this 20/20 episode on it, and decided to get it digitalized to post it on youtube vs. that the copyright holder actually posted it?
On the post: Why Won't Universal Music Let You See The 20/20 Report From 1980 About How The Music Industry Is Dying?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Analysis of Fair Use?
IF? Don't you mean "Since 20/20 obviously didn't post the video on youtube"? What's that? You don't even know who posted it, you just feel that it must be copyright infringement? Very strange.
The point is that UMG said "Hey, that infringes on our copyright" and it *didn't*. It didn't because if it was fair use enough to air on TV (as it did) then just because a different medium was used to get it to eyeballs doesn't make it no longer fair use.
As for the emails, when/if they get old, I auto-archive them. No biggie, sure beats sitting at a computer all day hitting the refresh button just to troll a blogger you don't agree with. I sure hope you're paid by the hour.
Next >>