This coming from Mike the man who said he would be honored if anyone used his work. Nice double standard.
Wait... what's my double standard? I would be honored if anyone used by work. They are free to do so at will. I'm not saying it's bad that the Times copied. I'm saying it's bad that they said copying is evil AND THEN copied.
The only double standard here was with the Times trying to claim that copying is bad... and then copying.
yes I could wikipedia it, but short definitions of the jargon would really enhance the article. no economics background here.
Hi Jesse, which jargon is confusing? There really isn't too much econ jargon in the post. "Winner take all" is about it, and that's basically self-descriptive. It's the argument that in particular markets, the leader has a disproportionate share.
What would happen if a group of American citizens sued the government over ownership of copyrighted works that are only under copyright because the copyright was extended? The claim would be that congress does not have to right to retroactively change an agreement between content creators and the public.
Tragically, it was done, and it failed. There are a few reasons why it failed -- some of which had to do with how the case was argued, and some of it had to do with the Justices' understanding of copyright law. The book "No Law" has a very depressing, but thorough analysis of how badly the justices screwed that one up.
This is a ridiculous statement and absolutely false.
The quote was directly from BMI. Who are you claiming is incorrect? Us? Or them?
Performing rights societies protect artists, composers, musicians period. Take it from me a working musician and composer. We depend on these societies for our livelihood.
No one denied that some folks relied on them. That's your mistake. It's dangerous to rely on others for your living, especially when they're making it that much harder for your music to get heard. If you were willing to actually build a smart business model, you might realize you don't need to rely on them at all.
I don't see how it's propaganda to show you how the organizations that you support are harming many up and coming musicians.
Don't listen to the propaganda that this site is spewing support the arts & music - support performing rights societies...or not.... what do I care it's protected by copyright law anyways...thank god
I love how all the people swearing that we're wrong don't point to a single factually incorrect thing. They just scream "you're wrong!!!!!!! they give me money!!!!!"
ASCAP, BMI and SESAC collect and pay performance royalties to songwriters and publishers. I crack up every time I hear another "expert" spouting off about how they pay "artists."
You don't consider songwriters artists? Sorry, I do. But I was pretty clear in the post explaining that this was for songwriters and composers.
Sure, the writer may also be a recording artist, but these are royalties generated by performances of the copyright - not the sound recording (you stupid shits) - the inherent copyright.
Um. Ok. Thanks for the insults. Though, before spewing such profanity, perhaps you should practice your reading comprehension, since we didn't say anything wrong at all.
So shut your fucking mouths until you know what you're talking about - please.
Or, learn to avoid cursing people out until you've actually learned to comprehend what was written. Might help.
My complaint, and it's a personal one, I admit, is that Mike's view of a good modern music business model rarely involves people paying for recorded music. And that's a concern to me.
It's not my view, it's what's happening. Look, if there were a good business model that involved paying for music, that would be great. Tragically, that's not how the market works.
I get the CwF+RtB ideal, but I struggle with how to give my customers (they're mine along with the musician's) a "reason to buy" with recorded music alone. But that's for me to figure out. And I am trying to adapt. I've not been in the industry long enough to be set in my ways. But it's not an easy industry to adapt inside. Most engineers I see coming out of college either go into sound for film, games, or leave the industry altogether.
Cool. I'm glad you're trying to adapt. I think there are many opportunities for those in other roles to adapt as a part of the wider ecosystem. There's still a demand for recorded music -- it still makes the rest of the system work. So there's still a demand for sound engineers. Yes, some folks are ignoring that and trying to do stuff on their own, but I think there will be a role for good engineers for a long, long time -- though, parts of that role may change.
For instance, Verizon uses their 2G network for voice and 3G for data...so even though you might have a shiny strong 3G signal, when you make a voice call your phone sounds like crap because it's using an old 2G tower.
Hmm. 3G is for data. The voice quality wouldn't change if they were using 3G or 2G. It's just about the data...
I've been reading articles like this on techdirt for months, and I have to say, as a working musician and composer, you guys scare the crap out of me.
Hmm. I scare the crap out of you? For describing what's happening? Shouldn't you be more worried about what's happening than the guy explaining it?
Most of your contentions have an oddly uniformed and misunderstanding of how a working musician pays the rent.
No, I'm quite aware of how many of them pay the rent. We talk to lots of working musicians. Doesn't mean that just because you paid the rent one way the market is going to let that happen going forward. I once "paid the rent" by working at a company that went out of business. Should I have had the "crap scared out of me" when that company shut down, or should I have done what I did: and move on and find another way to earn a living?
I love to embrace new ideas and concepts, but I rarely see that here.
On a regular basis we post examples of tons of musicians, big, medium and small, embracing new models and making money (usually more than they made in the past). I'm surprised you've missed all of those articles.
Most musicians I know don't want to be small businessmen, sell t-shirts, tour, and musicians like me, composers, song writers, film scorers, well, we're just guys with kids, backyards, college tuition. Music is our day job. We ARE small businesses, yes, and most of us are pretty good at earning a living
Huh? So you don't want to be small businessmen, but you are small businessmen? Which is it? If you are a small businessman, then you need to figure out how to earn money. If you don't want to be one, then you need to team up with those who do. It's called the real world.
most of us are pretty good at earning a living, but the techdirt blog constantly attacks our livlihood without taking the time to understand; not the push and pull of rock stars selling out arenas, but the journeymen workers in the trenches.
How is it an "attack" on your "livelihood" when I'm just describing what's happening in the market, as well as giving examples of how to make money off of that change? I'm really perplexed here.
Music has always been a pyramid of talent. If you have it you make a living, if you don't, you don't.
Sure. Who said otherwise? But, just "having it" isn't enough to make a living. You need to work at it too.
Most of us studied for years, have college degrees (and the debt) and work nine to five a these jobs.
And that's good.
The royalty societies collect our earnings and distribute them.
In some cases yes, but as the article highlighted, in many cases, no, it does not. And it's making it much more difficult for others. I'm glad you earn a living. Do you feel good that those representing you are making it harder for the next generation to do the same?
However, the bottom line as misrepresented in your article is correct. If your music is not performed you don't get paid.
Pray tell, what was "misrepresented"?
Another point overlooked: many of these venues have the jukebox on, or the radio. The music IS being performed. Cracks about 'open mic nights' are entirely disingenuous on your part.
Again, that's speculation on your part. The venues quoted in the article say the complaints were about live music, not the jukebox. Are you suggesting they are lying, and then blaming us for that? That seems rather obnoxious.
I understand the emotional values behind crusades, however, you may in fact be doing more harm than good.
Again, how am I doing "harm" by describing how the market is changing? I recognize that you might not like to admit that the market is changing, but I'm not sure how that's my fault.
Stop feeding the Troll, Mike. :) He's really making no sense and grasping at straws. Honestly. Claiming that no, you can't make great effects? *laugh* Saying Star Wreck is an example of bad effects? *Maybe* by today's standards, but look back 5 years before it was made at the 'big budget' movies and it's equal.
Sorry, can't resist. Sometimes they make it so easy. It's really a bit unfortunate. I know a bunch of folks working in the business who get this, and every so often they run up against someone like the guy commenting here. I had a conversation last week with someone saying he can't wait until folks like this commenter finally die off, so the next generation can stop having to fight this silly battle. The good news is that enough people understand this stuff, and they'll start to make the old guard look silly.
But, just you wait and see. As the new dogs make it happen, the old guard will insist it was all their idea in the first place. I can't wait to see our "Freedom is Freeloading" friend in five years talk about how he knew all along how special effects were being revolutionized on the cheap side, and that embracing file sharing was so obviously the right thing to do. By then, he'll have forgotten he even posted the exact opposite here.
Of course, that's why these guys never post under traceable names. They know they'll be called out on it.
I normally think about second opinions in the context of a medical diagnosis. I normally do not think about second opinions in the context of a test for a genetic marker.
So you ignore the fact that you are wrong because it just doesn't seem important to you that people may be dying?
This article illustrates just how clueless Masnick is about the film industry.
Heh. Ok.
The Hollywood studios make most of their money from the home entertainment market (ie DVDs, licensing to TV and cable), not the cinema box office.
As someone else noted, Hollywood fought the home entertainment market as hard as possible. You lost all credibility there. So now you're claiming that it's important to save that market? Last time we didn't listen to your moral panics and you guys ended up making a lot more. Seems like it makes sense to do so again.
They also have to give part of the box office to the owners of the cinema. It is quite possible for the box office figures to rise yet the studios struggle if the home entertainment market collapses due to rampant piracy.
Indeed. It's entirely possible, but only if Hollywood is too clueless to implement smarter business models. I have faith that they'll figure it out. Are you suggesting that they aren't that smart?
Actually I did. I pointed out that the point you were trying to prove was false. That you continue to ignore that... well... that says something about your own particular form of reasoning.
I would love to hear what "independent factor" could be responsible for the 98 percent of the 100 highest grossing films of all time being big budget epics.
Heh. You mean you can't figure it out? And you imply you work in the business? Yikes. Let's start with the first one: you're using the wrong numbers...
There is a point at which citing the "correlation/causation" principle just becomes obnoxious. Congratulations on reaching that point.
Ha! By which you mean "shit, he struck a nerve, actually called my bluff and I have no answer, so let's throw out an insult and hope he goes away."
It's not a strawman at all and yes I am more familiar with the kinds of effects people are creating on the cheap than you are and yes while they are impressive for what they are, digital matte backdrops, rudimentary greenscreen and simple rotoscoping do not hold a candle to the effects in your average Hollywood blockbuster.
Indeed. But we're not talking about absolute quality are we? We're talking about quality relative to profits.
What a ridiculous statement. The biggest costs in a movie depends on the movie! In Spiderman 2, the effects budget was north of SIXTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS. The cast allotment was less than HALF of that.
Heh. Yes, on one film. Single data point. Gee, that's useful. And the fact that some major studio threw away way too much money on special effects for a movie isn't really supporting your point. It just suggests that some folks tricked some clueless studio heads into overpaying.
Where money is NOT being wasted, is on effects. Blockbuster caliber effects are still VERY expensive despite whatever baseless bullshit you happen to believe sans any evidence what so ever.
Let me guess, you work in the effects biz? Of course none of it's wasted...
They're already outsourcing the simple stuff to India. Apart from that, no. Just no. You do not know what you're talking about.
Translation: "I can't prove you wrong so I'll stomp my feet and pretend I know stuff." Must have really touched a nerve, huh?
There is no number and I never said there was. Any and all films should be legally protected under copyright regardless of their budget. Even your strawman 100 billion dollar movie that will never exist and has nothing to do with anything should be protected under copyright. What is your point here? Do you have one?
Yes, you were insisting that it was important for the economy to protect the $200 million movie. I'm asking why $200 million is the key number. If we need to give incentives for a $200 million movie, why not a $1 billion or $100 billion one? Because the level of protection will, based on your thinking, encourage the incentive for greater and greater investment into movies. And your logic of correlation is that the more you spend, the more you make.
So shouldn't you be making $100 billion movies? You said that the correlation proves your point. You say that we need such expensive movies to help the economy, so come on man, spend, spend, spend. You've got the proof. Why aren't you backing up your words?
There is no difference between literary fiction (which was expressly protected) and filmed fiction. I think the founding fathers would have been just fine with it. The language was made vague for a reason. "Science" was an archaically broad term that did not mean what it does today. I notice you left out "the arts" from your quote and I find that hilarious although that term, as well, didn't mean what it does today.
Copyright was to protect science. Patents were for "useful arts." That's why I left it out. It was irrelevant. But, yes, you are right that "science" covered different things: but not entertainment.
The first copyright act was for "securing the Copies of Maps, Charts and Books." Not plays. Not music.
Strawman. I never defended this point of view although I do see the analogy (yours, not his).
Not a strawman at all. The movie industry for years tried to kill the video market. It's ridiculous to now insist that it's vital.
Only time will tell if the internet is just the next step in a series of initially-resisted, eventually-embraced technologies that go on to open up new markets. My opinion is that it WILL open up new markets (beyond Itunes and the like) but unlike the VCR, they will be at the expense of older markets and won't be anywhere near as lucrative which will result in a vastly changed landscape and not necessarily for the better
Out of curiosity, can you name a single technological progress that made the overall market for entertainment services and products worse? I'll be waiting.
Your McDonald's Happy Meal economics will never willingly replace the economics of selling copies.
Heh. I'll be sure to let my econ professors know of your disdain. Just so you know, just because you don't understand basic economics, it doesn't make them "McDonald's Happy Meal" economics. If you want to discuss economics, I'm more than willing to discuss them. But if you want to throw out insults on subjects of which you appear to be unaware, well, I guess if it makes you feel better...
You are being met with such strong resistance (when not outright ignored) because people by their very nature will naturally try to serve their own best interests. Your doctrine is largely dismissed by the outside world as fanatical because contrary to your claims, it will not work for everyone. For many, it would prove counter-productive, like for example, the people who make the blockbuster movies that audiences the world over seem to prefer over anything else.
Hmm. I'm not sure what this "strong resistance" is that you speak of. And again, I'm not sure what you mean when you say what I speak of is being dismissed. You are not privy to the conversations I have, but they suggest a rather different reality than you seem to think. Lots of people are figuring this out, and lots of them are talking to me for help. I mean, sure there are a few people who seem to think there's some way to hold back progress and hold onto some old way of doing business, but they'll eventually realize. But, for the most part, you'd be amazed at how open people in the entertainment industry have been to understanding what's going on. Sure, I poke a few ignorant folks along the way, but that's just to get them out of the way.
And both home video and secondary licensing are currently what allow more movies with better production values to be made.
Yes, and the internet is what will allow that to happen in the future. No thanks to folks like yourself. But certainly thanks to plenty of others who are figuring this out while you look backwards.
Why not? Anyone who works in this business will tell you they are VERY necessary. Literally anyone. Even a nineteen year old grip smoking a joint behind the studio dumpsters would tell you that. If you have a quote by someone actually in the industry (not a crackpot internet theorist) claiming otherwise, I would love to see it.
I talk to lots of people in the industry. And they don't seem to agree with you. Oh well. Can't hold back the tide, but I guess some people will always think they can.
I hope you're right, but you have yet to elucidate any.
You should try reading this great site on the internets called Techdirt, where I've pointed out plenty. Or, if you'd like, you can hire us to help you get through your specific troubles. Your competitors probably already have.
I do believe that and I have been paying attention.
Not enough, apparently.
If people were squirrels and could live on peanuts, you would be right. Unfortunately we are not and you are wrong.
Heh. I'll be sure to tell that to the folks who are making millions by ignoring copyright. Maybe they'll buy you some peanuts with their earnings.
Seeing as I've seen the results of producing content while ignoring copyright, I can say, unequivocally that I am very, very right.
:)
Ha! And so you do work in the industry. Good luck to you. You need it. Or rather, you need some help from someone who's looking forward, not backwards. I assume it's not going to be me, since you obviously have some weird phobia of someone who actually knows something about economics of content, but you should at least look around for some help. Quickly.
Your assumption about what I "seem to assume" is off the mark. Workable business models are almost infinite in number. Thus, please stop patting yourself on the back. It is getting a bit tedious.
You were the one who suggested Loews comments were irrelevant. I was pointing out why that was not so.
As for tedious, I would suggest that your constant refrain of comments on this site, where you pedantically insult anyone who disagrees with you is much more tedious. Your tendancy to pretend you are not insulting people by saying "merely fyi" or "I am not aware" or some other pompous opening is the sort of obnoxiousness I merely seek to mimic in my responses to you. If you find it tedious or offensive, hold up a mirror. I am only responding as you do.
Loew's comment, while made in a era when business interests in the movie industry were aligned quite differently than now, reflects in part the point you make repeatedly. Content is a means by which one can potentially profit from the sale of a scarcity.
Exactly. Which was the point I was making. And yet you, as is your usual style, sought to attack it in pompous language implying that it no longer made sense. You were wrong, I called you on it, and your response is to now backtrack and call me arrogant and tedious.
Merely FYI, I think you are wrong about that.
One final comment if I may
Pompous opening for an insult...
The constant "slamming" of business that rely on copyright in support of their business models may be buggy whip-like, but that is a choice they are free to make.
Indeed. And a choice I can make is to point out why they are making a mistake -- especially when their choices serve to limit free speech, free expression and basic user freedoms.
I'm sorry if you don't like it, but merely FYI, last I checked, you had no right to tell me what I can and cannot say.
Your constant demeaning of the choices they make in my view comes across in varying degrees are arrogant.
I am not "demeaning" the choices they make. I am pointing out why they are bad choices. Again, I don't see what is wrong with that. Should I keep my mouth shut when I see someone doing something stupid? I believe it is my right to speak up and try to get them to see the light.
Let them make their choices and then let the chips fall where they may.
Heh. Ok, let me summarize your position: "I am going to criticize you for criticizing others. I am telling you that you are wrong to tell other people they are wrong."
Yup. That makes sense.
It seems to me that you far better promote your economic arguments when you utilize examples that do not rely on copyright to achieve business success.
Perhaps. But thus I should ignore the abuses and the abusers? Sorry. It doesn't work that way.
I do not have the cites readily at hand, but I have read at least two studies that concluded "gene patents" (a term much more limited that it seems to suggest) wherein the impact of such patents was discovered to have virtually no meaningful impact on the activities of third parties. Is this really a pressing issue, or is more akin to a tempest in a teapot?
Tell that to the women who can not get a second opinion or a test from anyone other than Myriad Genetics for BRCA1 and BRCA2. I think that the impact is pretty major on them.
Or do you not think that those women's plights are "meaningful"?
Exactly. That's why large companies are trying to kill the patent system with what they call reform so they don't have to adapt.
Staff3, I recognize that you make your living suing other companies for patent infringement, but this particular discussion had nothing whatsoever to do with patents. You might want to stop looking at everything through your unique set of glasses. The patent system is not everything...
RSS
Twitter
Re: Re: Re: (as Mike Masnick)
Its slightly less wrong now, but my original mistake of 'burg vs 'berg still keeps it wrong.
Messed that one up good.
Aye! Fixed again. :)
Re: (as Mike Masnick)
This coming from Mike the man who said he would be honored if anyone used his work. Nice double standard.
Wait... what's my double standard? I would be honored if anyone used by work. They are free to do so at will. I'm not saying it's bad that the Times copied. I'm saying it's bad that they said copying is evil AND THEN copied.
The only double standard here was with the Times trying to claim that copying is bad... and then copying.
Re: I wouldn't say he's exactly blaming the internet (as Mike Masnick)
Here's the link to the story (which you should have provided).
Um, we did provide it. It's the blue highlighted stuff in the post...
Re: (as Mike Masnick)
yes I could wikipedia it, but short definitions of the jargon would really enhance the article. no economics background here.
Hi Jesse, which jargon is confusing? There really isn't too much econ jargon in the post. "Winner take all" is about it, and that's basically self-descriptive. It's the argument that in particular markets, the leader has a disproportionate share.
Re: (as Mike Masnick)
it's www.gutenberg.org
Fixed.
Re: I was wondering (as Mike Masnick)
What would happen if a group of American citizens sued the government over ownership of copyrighted works that are only under copyright because the copyright was extended? The claim would be that congress does not have to right to retroactively change an agreement between content creators and the public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft
Tragically, it was done, and it failed. There are a few reasons why it failed -- some of which had to do with how the case was argued, and some of it had to do with the Justices' understanding of copyright law. The book "No Law" has a very depressing, but thorough analysis of how badly the justices screwed that one up.
Re: This Article Is Misleading (as Mike Masnick)
This is a ridiculous statement and absolutely false.
The quote was directly from BMI. Who are you claiming is incorrect? Us? Or them?
Performing rights societies protect artists, composers, musicians period. Take it from me a working musician and composer. We depend on these societies for our livelihood.
No one denied that some folks relied on them. That's your mistake. It's dangerous to rely on others for your living, especially when they're making it that much harder for your music to get heard. If you were willing to actually build a smart business model, you might realize you don't need to rely on them at all.
I don't see how it's propaganda to show you how the organizations that you support are harming many up and coming musicians.
Don't listen to the propaganda that this site is spewing support the arts & music - support performing rights societies...or not.... what do I care it's protected by copyright law anyways...thank god
I love how all the people swearing that we're wrong don't point to a single factually incorrect thing. They just scream "you're wrong!!!!!!! they give me money!!!!!"
Ok. Good luck to you.
Re: read your music biz 101 books you idiots (as Mike Masnick)
ASCAP, BMI and SESAC collect and pay performance royalties to songwriters and publishers. I crack up every time I hear another "expert" spouting off about how they pay "artists."
You don't consider songwriters artists? Sorry, I do. But I was pretty clear in the post explaining that this was for songwriters and composers.
Sure, the writer may also be a recording artist, but these are royalties generated by performances of the copyright - not the sound recording (you stupid shits) - the inherent copyright.
Um. Ok. Thanks for the insults. Though, before spewing such profanity, perhaps you should practice your reading comprehension, since we didn't say anything wrong at all.
So shut your fucking mouths until you know what you're talking about - please.
Or, learn to avoid cursing people out until you've actually learned to comprehend what was written. Might help.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys scare me. (as Mike Masnick)
My complaint, and it's a personal one, I admit, is that Mike's view of a good modern music business model rarely involves people paying for recorded music. And that's a concern to me.
It's not my view, it's what's happening. Look, if there were a good business model that involved paying for music, that would be great. Tragically, that's not how the market works.
I get the CwF+RtB ideal, but I struggle with how to give my customers (they're mine along with the musician's) a "reason to buy" with recorded music alone. But that's for me to figure out. And I am trying to adapt. I've not been in the industry long enough to be set in my ways. But it's not an easy industry to adapt inside. Most engineers I see coming out of college either go into sound for film, games, or leave the industry altogether.
Cool. I'm glad you're trying to adapt. I think there are many opportunities for those in other roles to adapt as a part of the wider ecosystem. There's still a demand for recorded music -- it still makes the rest of the system work. So there's still a demand for sound engineers. Yes, some folks are ignoring that and trying to do stuff on their own, but I think there will be a role for good engineers for a long, long time -- though, parts of that role may change.
Re: (as Mike Masnick)
Hmmm, I keep getting a Page Not Found 404 error for the link the the new story at consumerist
Weird. Looks like the link changed. Updated.
Re: It's actually complicated... (as Mike Masnick)
For instance, Verizon uses their 2G network for voice and 3G for data...so even though you might have a shiny strong 3G signal, when you make a voice call your phone sounds like crap because it's using an old 2G tower.
Hmm. 3G is for data. The voice quality wouldn't change if they were using 3G or 2G. It's just about the data...
Re: You guys scare me. (as Mike Masnick)
I've been reading articles like this on techdirt for months, and I have to say, as a working musician and composer, you guys scare the crap out of me.
Hmm. I scare the crap out of you? For describing what's happening? Shouldn't you be more worried about what's happening than the guy explaining it?
Most of your contentions have an oddly uniformed and misunderstanding of how a working musician pays the rent.
No, I'm quite aware of how many of them pay the rent. We talk to lots of working musicians. Doesn't mean that just because you paid the rent one way the market is going to let that happen going forward. I once "paid the rent" by working at a company that went out of business. Should I have had the "crap scared out of me" when that company shut down, or should I have done what I did: and move on and find another way to earn a living?
I love to embrace new ideas and concepts, but I rarely see that here.
On a regular basis we post examples of tons of musicians, big, medium and small, embracing new models and making money (usually more than they made in the past). I'm surprised you've missed all of those articles.
Most musicians I know don't want to be small businessmen, sell t-shirts, tour, and musicians like me, composers, song writers, film scorers, well, we're just guys with kids, backyards, college tuition. Music is our day job. We ARE small businesses, yes, and most of us are pretty good at earning a living
Huh? So you don't want to be small businessmen, but you are small businessmen? Which is it? If you are a small businessman, then you need to figure out how to earn money. If you don't want to be one, then you need to team up with those who do. It's called the real world.
most of us are pretty good at earning a living, but the techdirt blog constantly attacks our livlihood without taking the time to understand; not the push and pull of rock stars selling out arenas, but the journeymen workers in the trenches.
How is it an "attack" on your "livelihood" when I'm just describing what's happening in the market, as well as giving examples of how to make money off of that change? I'm really perplexed here.
Music has always been a pyramid of talent. If you have it you make a living, if you don't, you don't.
Sure. Who said otherwise? But, just "having it" isn't enough to make a living. You need to work at it too.
Most of us studied for years, have college degrees (and the debt) and work nine to five a these jobs.
And that's good.
The royalty societies collect our earnings and distribute them.
In some cases yes, but as the article highlighted, in many cases, no, it does not. And it's making it much more difficult for others. I'm glad you earn a living. Do you feel good that those representing you are making it harder for the next generation to do the same?
However, the bottom line as misrepresented in your article is correct. If your music is not performed you don't get paid.
Pray tell, what was "misrepresented"?
Another point overlooked: many of these venues have the jukebox on, or the radio. The music IS being performed. Cracks about 'open mic nights' are entirely disingenuous on your part.
Again, that's speculation on your part. The venues quoted in the article say the complaints were about live music, not the jukebox. Are you suggesting they are lying, and then blaming us for that? That seems rather obnoxious.
I understand the emotional values behind crusades, however, you may in fact be doing more harm than good.
Again, how am I doing "harm" by describing how the market is changing? I recognize that you might not like to admit that the market is changing, but I'm not sure how that's my fault.
Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Mike Masnick)
Stop feeding the Troll, Mike. :) He's really making no sense and grasping at straws. Honestly. Claiming that no, you can't make great effects? *laugh* Saying Star Wreck is an example of bad effects? *Maybe* by today's standards, but look back 5 years before it was made at the 'big budget' movies and it's equal.
Sorry, can't resist. Sometimes they make it so easy. It's really a bit unfortunate. I know a bunch of folks working in the business who get this, and every so often they run up against someone like the guy commenting here. I had a conversation last week with someone saying he can't wait until folks like this commenter finally die off, so the next generation can stop having to fight this silly battle. The good news is that enough people understand this stuff, and they'll start to make the old guard look silly.
But, just you wait and see. As the new dogs make it happen, the old guard will insist it was all their idea in the first place. I can't wait to see our "Freedom is Freeloading" friend in five years talk about how he knew all along how special effects were being revolutionized on the cheap side, and that embracing file sharing was so obviously the right thing to do. By then, he'll have forgotten he even posted the exact opposite here.
Of course, that's why these guys never post under traceable names. They know they'll be called out on it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nonsense (as Mike Masnick)
I normally think about second opinions in the context of a medical diagnosis. I normally do not think about second opinions in the context of a test for a genetic marker.
So you ignore the fact that you are wrong because it just doesn't seem important to you that people may be dying?
You are a sick, sick individual.
Re: Clueless Masnick (as Mike Masnick)
This article illustrates just how clueless Masnick is about the film industry.
Heh. Ok.
The Hollywood studios make most of their money from the home entertainment market (ie DVDs, licensing to TV and cable), not the cinema box office.
As someone else noted, Hollywood fought the home entertainment market as hard as possible. You lost all credibility there. So now you're claiming that it's important to save that market? Last time we didn't listen to your moral panics and you guys ended up making a lot more. Seems like it makes sense to do so again.
They also have to give part of the box office to the owners of the cinema. It is quite possible for the box office figures to rise yet the studios struggle if the home entertainment market collapses due to rampant piracy.
Indeed. It's entirely possible, but only if Hollywood is too clueless to implement smarter business models. I have faith that they'll figure it out. Are you suggesting that they aren't that smart?
Re: Re: Re: (as Mike Masnick)
No you really didn't say anything did you?
Actually I did. I pointed out that the point you were trying to prove was false. That you continue to ignore that... well... that says something about your own particular form of reasoning.
I would love to hear what "independent factor" could be responsible for the 98 percent of the 100 highest grossing films of all time being big budget epics.
Heh. You mean you can't figure it out? And you imply you work in the business? Yikes. Let's start with the first one: you're using the wrong numbers...
There is a point at which citing the "correlation/causation" principle just becomes obnoxious. Congratulations on reaching that point.
Ha! By which you mean "shit, he struck a nerve, actually called my bluff and I have no answer, so let's throw out an insult and hope he goes away."
It's not a strawman at all and yes I am more familiar with the kinds of effects people are creating on the cheap than you are and yes while they are impressive for what they are, digital matte backdrops, rudimentary greenscreen and simple rotoscoping do not hold a candle to the effects in your average Hollywood blockbuster.
Indeed. But we're not talking about absolute quality are we? We're talking about quality relative to profits.
What a ridiculous statement. The biggest costs in a movie depends on the movie! In Spiderman 2, the effects budget was north of SIXTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS. The cast allotment was less than HALF of that.
Heh. Yes, on one film. Single data point. Gee, that's useful. And the fact that some major studio threw away way too much money on special effects for a movie isn't really supporting your point. It just suggests that some folks tricked some clueless studio heads into overpaying.
Where money is NOT being wasted, is on effects. Blockbuster caliber effects are still VERY expensive despite whatever baseless bullshit you happen to believe sans any evidence what so ever.
Let me guess, you work in the effects biz? Of course none of it's wasted...
They're already outsourcing the simple stuff to India. Apart from that, no. Just no. You do not know what you're talking about.
Translation: "I can't prove you wrong so I'll stomp my feet and pretend I know stuff." Must have really touched a nerve, huh?
There is no number and I never said there was. Any and all films should be legally protected under copyright regardless of their budget. Even your strawman 100 billion dollar movie that will never exist and has nothing to do with anything should be protected under copyright. What is your point here? Do you have one?
Yes, you were insisting that it was important for the economy to protect the $200 million movie. I'm asking why $200 million is the key number. If we need to give incentives for a $200 million movie, why not a $1 billion or $100 billion one? Because the level of protection will, based on your thinking, encourage the incentive for greater and greater investment into movies. And your logic of correlation is that the more you spend, the more you make.
So shouldn't you be making $100 billion movies? You said that the correlation proves your point. You say that we need such expensive movies to help the economy, so come on man, spend, spend, spend. You've got the proof. Why aren't you backing up your words?
There is no difference between literary fiction (which was expressly protected) and filmed fiction. I think the founding fathers would have been just fine with it. The language was made vague for a reason. "Science" was an archaically broad term that did not mean what it does today. I notice you left out "the arts" from your quote and I find that hilarious although that term, as well, didn't mean what it does today.
Copyright was to protect science. Patents were for "useful arts." That's why I left it out. It was irrelevant. But, yes, you are right that "science" covered different things: but not entertainment.
The first copyright act was for "securing the Copies of Maps, Charts and Books." Not plays. Not music.
Strawman. I never defended this point of view although I do see the analogy (yours, not his).
Not a strawman at all. The movie industry for years tried to kill the video market. It's ridiculous to now insist that it's vital.
Only time will tell if the internet is just the next step in a series of initially-resisted, eventually-embraced technologies that go on to open up new markets. My opinion is that it WILL open up new markets (beyond Itunes and the like) but unlike the VCR, they will be at the expense of older markets and won't be anywhere near as lucrative which will result in a vastly changed landscape and not necessarily for the better
Out of curiosity, can you name a single technological progress that made the overall market for entertainment services and products worse? I'll be waiting.
Your McDonald's Happy Meal economics will never willingly replace the economics of selling copies.
Heh. I'll be sure to let my econ professors know of your disdain. Just so you know, just because you don't understand basic economics, it doesn't make them "McDonald's Happy Meal" economics. If you want to discuss economics, I'm more than willing to discuss them. But if you want to throw out insults on subjects of which you appear to be unaware, well, I guess if it makes you feel better...
You are being met with such strong resistance (when not outright ignored) because people by their very nature will naturally try to serve their own best interests. Your doctrine is largely dismissed by the outside world as fanatical because contrary to your claims, it will not work for everyone. For many, it would prove counter-productive, like for example, the people who make the blockbuster movies that audiences the world over seem to prefer over anything else.
Hmm. I'm not sure what this "strong resistance" is that you speak of. And again, I'm not sure what you mean when you say what I speak of is being dismissed. You are not privy to the conversations I have, but they suggest a rather different reality than you seem to think. Lots of people are figuring this out, and lots of them are talking to me for help. I mean, sure there are a few people who seem to think there's some way to hold back progress and hold onto some old way of doing business, but they'll eventually realize. But, for the most part, you'd be amazed at how open people in the entertainment industry have been to understanding what's going on. Sure, I poke a few ignorant folks along the way, but that's just to get them out of the way.
And both home video and secondary licensing are currently what allow more movies with better production values to be made.
Yes, and the internet is what will allow that to happen in the future. No thanks to folks like yourself. But certainly thanks to plenty of others who are figuring this out while you look backwards.
Why not? Anyone who works in this business will tell you they are VERY necessary. Literally anyone. Even a nineteen year old grip smoking a joint behind the studio dumpsters would tell you that. If you have a quote by someone actually in the industry (not a crackpot internet theorist) claiming otherwise, I would love to see it.
I talk to lots of people in the industry. And they don't seem to agree with you. Oh well. Can't hold back the tide, but I guess some people will always think they can.
I hope you're right, but you have yet to elucidate any.
You should try reading this great site on the internets called Techdirt, where I've pointed out plenty. Or, if you'd like, you can hire us to help you get through your specific troubles. Your competitors probably already have.
I do believe that and I have been paying attention.
Not enough, apparently.
If people were squirrels and could live on peanuts, you would be right. Unfortunately we are not and you are wrong.
Heh. I'll be sure to tell that to the folks who are making millions by ignoring copyright. Maybe they'll buy you some peanuts with their earnings.
Seeing as I've seen the results of producing content while ignoring copyright, I can say, unequivocally that I am very, very right.
:)
Ha! And so you do work in the industry. Good luck to you. You need it. Or rather, you need some help from someone who's looking forward, not backwards. I assume it's not going to be me, since you obviously have some weird phobia of someone who actually knows something about economics of content, but you should at least look around for some help. Quickly.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Mike Masnick)
Your assumption about what I "seem to assume" is off the mark. Workable business models are almost infinite in number. Thus, please stop patting yourself on the back. It is getting a bit tedious.
You were the one who suggested Loews comments were irrelevant. I was pointing out why that was not so.
As for tedious, I would suggest that your constant refrain of comments on this site, where you pedantically insult anyone who disagrees with you is much more tedious. Your tendancy to pretend you are not insulting people by saying "merely fyi" or "I am not aware" or some other pompous opening is the sort of obnoxiousness I merely seek to mimic in my responses to you. If you find it tedious or offensive, hold up a mirror. I am only responding as you do.
Loew's comment, while made in a era when business interests in the movie industry were aligned quite differently than now, reflects in part the point you make repeatedly. Content is a means by which one can potentially profit from the sale of a scarcity.
Exactly. Which was the point I was making. And yet you, as is your usual style, sought to attack it in pompous language implying that it no longer made sense. You were wrong, I called you on it, and your response is to now backtrack and call me arrogant and tedious.
Merely FYI, I think you are wrong about that.
One final comment if I may
Pompous opening for an insult...
The constant "slamming" of business that rely on copyright in support of their business models may be buggy whip-like, but that is a choice they are free to make.
Indeed. And a choice I can make is to point out why they are making a mistake -- especially when their choices serve to limit free speech, free expression and basic user freedoms.
I'm sorry if you don't like it, but merely FYI, last I checked, you had no right to tell me what I can and cannot say.
Your constant demeaning of the choices they make in my view comes across in varying degrees are arrogant.
I am not "demeaning" the choices they make. I am pointing out why they are bad choices. Again, I don't see what is wrong with that. Should I keep my mouth shut when I see someone doing something stupid? I believe it is my right to speak up and try to get them to see the light.
Let them make their choices and then let the chips fall where they may.
Heh. Ok, let me summarize your position: "I am going to criticize you for criticizing others. I am telling you that you are wrong to tell other people they are wrong."
Yup. That makes sense.
It seems to me that you far better promote your economic arguments when you utilize examples that do not rely on copyright to achieve business success.
Perhaps. But thus I should ignore the abuses and the abusers? Sorry. It doesn't work that way.
Merely FYI, of course.
Re: Re: Re: nonsense (as Mike Masnick)
I do not have the cites readily at hand, but I have read at least two studies that concluded "gene patents" (a term much more limited that it seems to suggest) wherein the impact of such patents was discovered to have virtually no meaningful impact on the activities of third parties. Is this really a pressing issue, or is more akin to a tempest in a teapot?
Tell that to the women who can not get a second opinion or a test from anyone other than Myriad Genetics for BRCA1 and BRCA2. I think that the impact is pretty major on them.
Or do you not think that those women's plights are "meaningful"?
Re: Important Typo/Correction (as Mike Masnick)
Heh. Yup. Fixed. Thanks.
Re: adapt (as Mike Masnick)
Exactly. That's why large companies are trying to kill the patent system with what they call reform so they don't have to adapt.
Staff3, I recognize that you make your living suing other companies for patent infringement, but this particular discussion had nothing whatsoever to do with patents. You might want to stop looking at everything through your unique set of glasses. The patent system is not everything...