Ex-RIAA Boss Ignores All Criticisim Of SOPA/PIPA, Claims Any Complaints Are Trying To Justify Stealing

from the this-is-how-you-got-into-such-a-mess dept

Over the long weekend, Jay Rosen was kind enough to tweet out a link to my recent "definitive" post highlighting all the problems with SOPA and PIPA. Lots of folks picked up on it, but the one that struck me as the most interesting was from Hilary Rosen, who tweeted back:
The Definitive Post?? Think analog. If a store doesn't sell u what u want, u are justified stealing it?
Hilary Rosen, of course, spent many years as the CEO of the RIAA. And while she hasn't been in that job since 2003, she presided over the Napster lawsuit and the beginnings of the Grokster lawsuit. I believe she left just before the RIAA started suing individuals for file sharing. She also appeared to have second thoughts about the strategy she led while in charge of the RIAA. However, this comment suggests otherwise.

Thinking analog has been the major problem that the RIAA (and MPAA, among others) have had for a long, long time. Rosen's big mistake when she was in charge of the RIAA was that she kept thinking analog. Isn't it time, perhaps, that she started thinking digitally?

But, even more to the point, it's getting ridiculous how many people defending SOPA/PIPA are doing so using this logic. They brush off all of the specific concerns, the highlights of problematic language, and they conclude "why are you justifying theft?" Of course, that's ridiculous. Beyond the fact that "theft" and "infringement" are very different (don't get me started), nothing in anyone's complaints about SOPA or PIPA have anything to do with "justifying" infringement. In fact, in the post that was being discussed, we clearly noted that infringement is a problem. We just disagree that PIPA and SOPA are reasonably, or even effective, solutions.

It's really quite ridiculous to lay out in such great detail all of the problems of the bill, only to have someone -- and someone who is partially responsible for the mess the record labels are in today -- brush off the entire thing by falsely stating that we're "justifying stealing." Unfortunately, this kind of "debate" is all too common. It seems that almost no one is interested in actually discussing the problems of the bill. They just insist that if you highlight problems in the bill you're trying to justify something.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 9:30am

    That should be their slogan.

    The RIAA: Think Analogue®

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 9:48am

    ewww, that tweet

    She sounds like the spoiled Valley Girl she probably is.

    Don't worry Hilary, daddy will buy you that new convertible next.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Mr. Smarta**, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 9:50am

    But... but...

    Every time a bell rings, an angel gets their wings.

    Every time you criticize SOPA/PIPA, a baby is slaughtered mercilessly with a battle ax, head smashed with a hammer, and its entrails are wrapped around street sign or dangled before the crowds in the most violet and despicable manner known to man.

    FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! SOPA/PIPA IS FOR THE CHILDREN!!! How can you be against that???

    Yeah, it sure isn't for the CEOs' bonuses, politicians' bribes, or the 't-shirts'...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 9:50am

    um. if the store doesn't sell it, that means they don't have it in stock, how would i steal it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    atroon, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 9:52am

    Thinking analog

    Thinking analog leads to complete idiocy like my mother having a drawer full of 16GB SD cards that are 'full' and she won't erase them 'because they are the originals and I don't want to lose quality!!!'

    So, we buy her more cards for Christmas. Merry Christmas SD card makers.

    It's so frustrating to be limited by people's habits and thought patterns in a world where there is so much that can be shared so freely and without monetary cost. My condolences to the RIAA on not being able to discern reality anymore.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 9:52am

    If you don't put what I want in the store, don't be pissed if I look elsewhere for it.
    Don't be mad if I explore CC licensed music, or artists skipping over your archaic business model.
    If you can't figure out how to release something worldwide within a week, don't cry when people forget they wanted it when you get around to releasing it in region 5 6 months later.

    Your approach to dealing with infringement has been to try and get more laws and make people think it is as horrible as home invasions with people breaking in to steal your last brick of ramen. How much longer until you stop playing the helpless victim and figure out you have so many more ways to make money today than ever before. That there is a world wide market, if you'd stop trying to treat each piece of the world as unconnected from the others.

    Maybe you haven't noticed, there are many artists using this internet fad to launch careers and they make more than they ever would have made under your system. How much longer before more artists decide your not needed? It might be time to innovate to keep them rather than try to legislate a perfect world where everyone pays you every 5 minutes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 9:54am

    She also has it exactly backwards: if you want laws today that criminalize anything that was legal yesterday, you better do some damn good justifying yourself. What she doesn't want to face is that they cannot justify such laws and the damage they will surely inflict, it's pure power grabbing and ridiculously transparent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 9:55am

    Re: Thinking analog

    "My condolences to the RIAA on not being able to discern reality anymore."

    hahaha, good one. You really think they don't know the difference?
    Protip: They do, they want to convince you and everybody else that there isn't one. That way they can continue to leech of us and consumers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 9:56am

    If a store doesn't sell u what u want, u are justified stealing it? - Derrrr I am an edumacated persin.

    What horseshit. If the store does not sell it, it is not there to "steal" If the store values its customers, it will try to fill the demand, and if they cant the consumer will go elswhere.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Kevin H (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 9:57am

    That tweet does a rather good job encapsulating exactly what we have all been (minus the AC/trollholios) saying for a while. The RIAA and MPAA are long for the days of 1993 when there was no such thing as an MP3 and you could find a Sam Goody in every mall across the US. "Think Analogue"?!? Are you out of your mind. Thinking Analogue would get me fired at my job.

    It is a digital world you aging dinosaur. Either evolve or become part of the fossil record. I could tell you which I would prefer....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 9:58am

    Re:

    The RIAA: Think Analogue®

    Not that I disagree, but since the RIAA is a US entity wouldn't that be:

    The RIAA: Think Analog®

    and

    The CRIA: Think Analogue®

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Adam V, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 9:59am

    Re:

    The RIAA: Think Analogue®
    The MPAA: Analog is Evil®

    Fight! Fight! Fight!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 9:59am

    Re: Re:

    "The RIAA: Think Analog®"

    But I thought analog taping was killing music?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:00am

    Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    with the "could", "collateral damage", and such. -- We've got your /position/ on infringement nailed down, I guess, now what's your SOLUTION? -- And if you say yet again "better business model", I just may LEAVE! It's NOT an answer.

    "If a store doesn't sell u what u want, u are justified stealing it?" -- That's been answered YES here MANY times. It's actually the answer that Mike supports with "find a better business model" -- without offering one -- as he ends up saying "pirates gonna pirate, learn to live with it", which is simply unacceptable to the dinosaurs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Vic, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:00am

    Sorry, but "think analog" just does not cut it... Why should we think analog? Let's go back to basics all the way then and "think Stone Age"! There were no money, there were no laws, no IP rights! Everything was so simple! If she would like to simplify the question then that is where she belongs!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Trails (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:00am

    Re: ewww, that tweet

    Mike just got done asking her to stick to the issues instead of throwing around labels, and you post this chauvinistic crap?

    Well failed, sir.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:02am

    Let's think of some analogs that don't involve theft.

    Maybe the store's screwdrivers are too expensive so I build my own. Maybe they don't have the particular size screwdrivers I need so I build my own. Maybe my friend has a screwdriver that I can borrow. Maybe my friend has an extra screwdriver that he just gives to me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Trails (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:02am

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    "And if you say yet again "better business model", I just may LEAVE! "

    The solution is a Better Business Model.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Kevin H (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:03am

    Re: But... but...

    I hate children. DUH!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:03am

    Re: Re: ewww, that tweet

    How the fuck was that chauvinistic

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Trails (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:03am

    Re:

    Screwdriver lending is killing screwing! No, wait...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:04am

    Re:

    trollholios - LOVE IT!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:05am

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    The solution is a Better Business Model.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Trails (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:08am

    Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet

    Are you serious? You dismiss her as a valley girl (a common negative stereotype of a ditzy woman), and seem to think a former CEO of the RIAA needs her "daddy" to buy her a convertible, all the while not sticking to the issues, but resorting to an ad hominem attack that relies on negative female stereotypes. Clear or do you need an explanation involving sock puppets?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:08am

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    Why are you spending $100 million on a movie?

    And just to have a bit of variety in my responses...HAHAHAHAHAHAH! You've just made yourself look like the absolute fool YET AGAIN!
    You keep demanding that Mike come up with a solution...he keeps responding with "Better business model", but you just don't want to accept that (then later on call the RIAA dinosaurs for doing exactly that!)
    As for how many people here have said YES to the question - how could they? It's not physically possible for them to have said Yes, because if the store DOESN'T sell the item, then it is impossible in every sense to STEAL it. How can I take something when its not there to begin with?
    Besides, why must Mike be the one to come up with a better business model? Haven't you thought about coming up with one yourself? Or are you waiting for him to do all the hard work of trying and experiment, then planning to copy and leech off what he's done?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Kevin H (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:08am

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    "I just may LEAVE! It's NOT an answer."

    Proof please. I would love to see what you have for that.

    "That's been answered YES here MANY times. It's actually the answer that Mike supports"

    Ahh, adding real world sensibilities to a world with no physical restrictions. Well done, though at this point I would expect better of you OOTB. Last I check Amazon or iTunes has never "run out" of a digital download, but I could be wrong. As for how Mike supports real world theft over suggesting that people play with newer business models is quit a leap even for you. You are getting into the Big Search arena of Bob.

    He is another one of my favorites.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    ahow628 (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:10am

    Re:

    Exactly. If they won't sell it to me, I go to a different store that will. If the price is too high at that store, I go to a store that will sell one to me at a reasonable price.

    None of those things is happening efficiently right now with the RIAA involved.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    Eric Goldman (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:11am

    Mike, SOPA/PIPA was never designed to provoke intelligent conversation about solutions to legitimate concerns. It was a pure rent-seeking rights grab, and the only open Q is if the proponents have enough muscle to push it through without actually addressing its "details." I wouldn't rule out the proponents' ability to do so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:14am

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    Do you realize that brick and mortar stores build in a certain amount of theft losses into their business model. Oh also, insurance companies have actuarial tables. And lets not forget the financial institutions that (*SHOULD*) have built in plans for certain percentage of defaults.

    Its not *new* business models they need. They need a normal business model. I guess we should start passing laws to protect auto insurance companies in case someone creates teleportation and now cars become irrelevant.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:15am

    1. Something must be done to combat online copyright infringement.
    2. SOPA/PIPA are something.
    Ergo, SOPA/PIPA must be done.

    Any arguments to the contrary are both illogical and unamerican.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:16am

    At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    That cuts both ways, guys. IF you had a practical solution for the INDUSTRY, it'd have been adopted by now. You just keep asserting that the dinosaurs don't even /want/ to make /more/ money with new methods.

    You continue to decry copyright, while giving no other means for /artists/ to protect their works from Big Media (another point that cuts both ways)...

    You continue to dance around the problem of piracy -- of course nearly everyone here denies that they do it, so the whole area shouldn't even matter to you -- while saying that if you can't get what you want, then you WILL pirate it...

    You continue to say that large numbers of artists (at least, rappers and mixers with cheap products, none who sink, say, $100M into a movie) are already using the power of the Internet to get around the gatekeepers, while pointing out that industry profits are up...

    You continue to insist that piracy is actually good for the industry by "promoting" its products, while of course unable to answer how an instance of consumption without paying in any way results in more income for the content owner.

    Your positions are self-contradictory.

    Face it: your newfangled "digital" notions are a ZERO, not a one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:16am

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    The solution is a better business model....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:17am

    I received a similarly mislead twit recently that resulted in this post.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet

    "You dismiss her as a valley girl"
    No, I disspsed her writing as a that of a valley girl

    "(a common negative stereotype of a ditzy woman)"

    No, it is a common (why negative?) stereotype of a valley girl.

    "and seem to think a former CEO of the RIAA needs her "daddy" to buy her a convertible"

    Yes, that is what I think. And you seem to think her being a woman and a former CEO of a lobby group needs defending by you, a strong, manly man. Oh, how manly of you, defending the poor little rich girl from mean old me.
    Do you like her or something?


    "Clear or do you need an explanation involving sock puppets?"
    oooh, how condescending. And ironic.
    I can bet if I said that about a man you wouldn't be calling me chauvinistic.

    For the record, I don't give a crap what Mike wants, I'm not working for him. I'll comment on what I want, when I want, and say what I want. Now kindly fuck off

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    AdamR (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:18am

    99 Problems an infringement ain't one!

    'Think analog. If a store doesn't sell u what u want, u are justified stealing it? "

    I wonder if she would like others using this think analog bit when it comes to people for bashing the the industry(labels & artists) for its drugs, alcohol get those bitches & hoes attitudes and don't forget to kill those cops!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:20am

    OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    I see several repeating the phrase like a mantra as if it's an answer. NO, you need more than the bare phrase.

    QUICK NOW, IN TWENTY-FIVE WORDS OR LESS, ANSWER.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    JEDIDIAH, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:21am

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    Why does their need to be a "solution"?

    Perhaps there just isn't one.

    The cure shouldn't be worse than the disease.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:22am

    Think digital. If you don't offer it for sale, are you justified in bitching about not getting paid? Literally thousands of songs didn't make the cut each time the format changed. Some favorites of everyone I knew got cut, never to be heard again.

    Digital shelving takes nearly no space. The shelf is near endless. Why are they bare?

    Every other market has learned if it isn't on the shelf it doesn't make money. Unlike brick and mortar stores, where shelf space is a concern because of it's limits, digital stores are only a front for warehousing.


    At the rate the entertainment industry is going, they're gonna have to invent a backwards pedaling bike. The way forward is hindered by blinders.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:23am

    Re:

    Oh hai!
    Saw your latest story over on TF, wonder if anyone will submit his public statements to the court.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    JEDIDIAH, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:24am

    Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    Piracy isn't a problem. It's a natural occurrence.

    This is why copyright was originally meant to be very temporary. Some really smart guys a long time ago figured out that trying to treat a song like a piece of land comes with some serious problems.

    Copyright doesn't exist for itself. It exists for other reasons that all of the people that whine about piracy seldom acknowledge.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:24am

    Re: Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    @"Rikuo": Thanks for being a repeating idiot. You give me opportunity to explain your fixation on $100M movie and to point out again how Mike reckons things in his fantasy land.

    Why I repeat the phrase "sunk (or fixed) costs":

    It's copy/pasted from Mike's piece having the movie example: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.shtml

    He writes that a movie cost $100 million to make -- after mentioning this impressive figure, he then sets it aside as "sunk (or fixed) costs" -- and makes market conditions a fictional "perfectly competitive" so that he can "prove" marginal costs are the only relevant factor for distributing movies.

    My synopsis omits nothing: his example is stark once some litter is removed. He's already pulled the trick necessary to be "right". Just read down to where he mentions and dismisses "sunk (or fixed) costs". -- STOP right there and ask how those could possibly be ignored... Only answer Mike gives is because he /says/ so. [When pressed by me later (in next link), Mike tries the line that "sunk (or fixed) costs" don't matter for /pricing/, but that's merely /continuing/ to claim having a (wanted and already promoted) movie in hand for only distribution costs.]

    In reality, one would only sort of ignore "sunk (or fixed) costs" IF they'd long since been recovered, and if old method worked for that, who'd be fooling around with new methods? His whole thesis falls apart at the premises.

    Don't forget that Mike supposedly has a degree in economics. I hold that kids running a lemonade stand know better. This isn't a slip-up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:25am

    SOPA/PIPA will be a lot more than just Censorship of some Pirate Sites.It will be the true death of Freedom in our Nation.The Patriot Act got our bodies and this one gets your mind.
    How can any Nation in this World take us seriously as a Nation of Freedom when we have draconian type laws ?

    We will have to shut up and stop telling other Nations they are repressive,etc.

    FUCK YOU WASHINGTON !
    Do not vote for anyone who signs this ! Better yet we should try and vote all these assholes out and another good idea is to hold mass rallies in Washington 2012 and mobilize the Country.I would even hitch-hike from Maine to fight for freedom and our American Way.I feel a showdown is going to happen the way things are going.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:26am

    Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    Hey OOTB.... Why are you spending $100 million on a movie?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:26am

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    And if you say yet again "better business model", I just may LEAVE!

    You have said this before and have never actually left. Why do you threaten to leave like it would be a bad thing? You very rarely offer anything of value to the conversation and those times you do, you point is so muddled and convoluted that responding is a chore.

    If you don't like the proposals that Mike has shared on numerous occasions why continue to ask for them?

    No one is stopping you from leaving yet you never do. Perhaps it is time to man up and follow through with your "threat".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:26am

    Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    The Better Business Model is everything that is the case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:29am

    Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    out_of_the_blue, What the fuck are you talking about? Seriously, what? Spell it out you fucking retard.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:29am

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    The /solution/ is a better business model.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:33am

    Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    They fear change, they have proven this time and time again and everything they fear ends up making them more profits when they stop fighting and embrace it. See VCR killing the film industry.

    I swear we've seen articles about people doing just fine with CC licenses, and even traditional copyright without having to hand them over to a corporation.

    The problem is the refusal to admit there is a huge market that they have no real desire to address. That in a world where a message can get to the upside down land of OZ in seconds, there should not been a 6 month gap in providing content people want to purchase.

    Industry profits are up, which guts the whole piracy is killing them argument, and at the same time there are people being successful by leaving the gatekeepers in the past where they want to stay.

    Here is an instance - if someone hears a song they like on the radio, they will purchase it. If someone sees a TV show they like, they will purchase it. The problem is when they play games and make it harder for the consumer to obtain what they want by adding restrictions and delays to the release ignoring that people can and will turn to alternate methods to obtain it when they want it. Hearing a song from an unknown might create a multimillion dollar empire - See Justin Beiber violating copyright by singing other peoples songs on YouTube and becoming famous for it.

    The zero I think you are seeing is the number of real things you ever manage to bring up, because your a shill. You have your opinion and you assume anyone who disagrees must be wrong. You steadfastly stand by your statements as they are proven wrong time and time again.

    But please tell me...
    Why are you spending $100M on a movie?

    :D

    Oh damn... I think I just out trolled you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:34am

    Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    > I see several repeating the phrase like a mantra as if it's
    > an answer.

    No, they're repeating it because you threatened to leave if they did. It's a 'hope springs eternal' sort of thing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    Trails (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:36am

    Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    "That cuts both ways, guys. IF you had a practical solution for the INDUSTRY, it'd have been adopted by now. You just keep asserting that the dinosaurs don't even /want/ to make /more/ money with new methods."

    Sorry, wrong on two fronts. This has been asked and answered several times by mike. Feel free to search, but I've seen it (and seen it pointed out to you several times). Second, and I'm bolding this because it's important, solving large content distributors' business model problems is NOT the responsibility of the tech industry.

    "You continue to dance around the problem of piracy -- of course nearly everyone here denies that they do it, so the whole area shouldn't even matter to you -- while saying that if you can't get what you want, then you WILL pirate it..."
    Mike says the following things on piracy very frequently:
    - It's wrong
    - He doesn't do it
    - He doesn't think other people should do it
    - Studies (with actual published data and methodology) show people who pirate also tend to consume more
    - These laws will not stop piracy.

    This is not dancing.

    "You continue to say that large numbers of artists (at least, rappers and mixers with cheap products, none who sink, say, $100M into a movie) are already using the power of the Internet to get around the gatekeepers, while pointing out that industry profits are up..."
    Ok, not much of a point in this, but many of the artists Mike points to who are using the internet successfully tend to be alternative rock types. Mike points to remixers for a different purpose: showing the cultural value of transformative reuse of content.

    "You continue to insist that piracy is actually good for the industry by "promoting" its products, while of course unable to answer how an instance of consumption without paying in any way results in more income for the content owner."
    I'll give you an example: someone pirates Mass Effect, plays the game, loves it, when Mass Effect 2 comes out on Steam, buys it. Would have ignored but for the pirated Mass Effect. I know several people who have done this.

    Another example: people who pirate and like Metallica, shell out $180/seat for concert tix(despite the fact that Lars Ulrich is an epic douchebag).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    DOlz (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:38am

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    Geez Louise! I need a guarantee that I'll make back ALL the money I invest in a movie. Mike you have to come up with a better business model for me.

    The world changes and it is YOUR responsibility to adapt or fall by the wayside. Life is uncertain and as an adult you need to come to terms with. If you don't want to take risks get a job that just gives a paycheck and doesn't require to take a leap of faith in your product or abilities. After all not every lottery ticket is a winner ... or does that upset you also?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    DOlz (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:40am

    Re: Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    I don't view it as a threat, but a promise.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    Trails (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:40am

    Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    The better business model is *drum roll please* NOT THE TECH INDUSTRY'S PROBLEM.

    There, 5 words.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:43am

    Can't expect any more from inferior people

    Hilary Rosen is merely doing the best that she can with her severely limited intellect and greed-based ethics. You really should lower your expectations to account for this -- it's not worth hoping for any more.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    I'm being "fixated" only because you were. You were the one who kept repeating $100 million as if its a holy number. Besides, in that link you gave (you did mention more than one link, but where's the second one?) Mike never responded to you. He responded quite a few times to "John Doe". Was that you?
    More than once, you kept whining for Mike to come up with a way to recoup that magic number, guaranteed. And when he does attempt a possible solution, you put your hands over your hears and go "Nanananana! Can't hear you!"

    For proof of that last statement, that is what you wrote ("And if you say yet again "better business model", I just may LEAVE! It's NOT an answer.) By saying you're going to completely ignore what the other side is going to say...means you have made yourself out to be a complete fool.

    Well, thanks for answering my question. I completely disagree with everything you said, but you answered it. I won't repeat my question any more. Instead, I'll concentrate on responding to everything else that's in your posts.

    Here's a free tip: If you want to call the RIAA dinosaurs for not embracing new business models, it doesn't help your case if you also don't embrace new business models.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Paul Clark, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:47am

    And the Proper Response Should be

    "Why are you trying to justify incompetence?"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    David Muir (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:51am

    Try thinking like the RIAA

    If the RIAA ran a bricks and mortar store, they would have a glass wall, behind which they stocked music that was not for sale but could be acquired through licensing deals in other countries. This why Hilary can envision a store that both doesn't sell and has in stock something that you could steal.

    She used "u" as a short form for "you". There was another short form in there that you may not have noticed: Think anal oh gee: analog. Because, oh gee, the RIAA likes when they have the customers bending over and taking it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:52am

    Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    all you do is come here whining about freetards and begging for the scoop on hot new business models..

    why do we need to figure out your new business model?

    why do we need these draconian, over-reaching laws placed over our heads to protect your old business model?


    what pisses me off is the mentality of these execs making boatloads of cash; that this is the best they could come up with:

    1. suing people by the thousands
    2. pushing insane laws down our throats

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:54am

    Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    "I see several"...including yourself, many times, then you say you don't want to hear it. When you outright state that you are unwilling to explore alternatives, simply because you don't want to hear about them...then you are a fool.

    Quick, now, in however many words it takes (I'm not gonna put a limit) come up with a business model yourself! Instead of waiting for someone else to do it! Do you want to know what the magic word is for that? INNOVATION! Something that you apparently are deathly allergic to.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:55am

    Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    I think I finally figured this out. Out_of_the_Blue = M. Night Shyamalan. Think about it. M. Night continuously makes $100m+ movies that fail to make their money back. Of course this is due to piracy as he couldn't possibly make a bad movie. OOTB has been exposed!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    TheBigH (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:57am

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    The solution is a better business model.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:57am

    Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    insightful simply because I agree about Lars :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:59am

    Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    hurm... his posts are pretty much as pointless and hard to follow as a Shyamalan plot....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:59am

    Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    I hate to tell you this, but all of Mr.Shyamalan made money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:00am

    Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    "Out of the Blue" is obviously a reference to his surprise endings.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    Kevin H (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:01am

    Re:

    Can't tell if trolling or.........Its Hitler commenting as an AC.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:04am

    Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    The answer is simple...
    It is not my job to come up with a valid new business model for some outdated media company...

    either our Benevolent Media Overlords figure something out on their own or they die...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    icon
    Jeff (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:05am

    Re: Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    The /solution/ is a \better\ /business/ \model\

    \m/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    Digitari, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:05am

    RE

    how does one eat digital content, OOTB please tell me what it is to "consume" digital" content, and what kids of turds does it make anyways? To consume something that means you take it into yourself or use it up. OOTB still thinks in analogue it seems..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    Kevin H (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    Couldn't help myself.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452637/

    Lady in the Water. 2006, Estiated 75,000,000 budget, did not quite get out from under that one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:09am

    Re: Re:

    Heh good point - I didn't even notice that I added the "ue" :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:09am

    Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    Sell the scarce.

    (3 words)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    yeah right, like I'm going to trust Warner Bros. to come clean with the real cost to make and total profit for that movie. (and that doesn't even include DVD and streaming sales)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:10am

    Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    There was this little band in the 90's that everytime they came in to town as an opening act, would stay in the parking lot talking with ppl and giving away their CD's and T-shirts before and after the show. Nice guys. They helped load their own equipment from the small trailer they pulled behind the bus. They were already signed with a major label, and hated how they were treated like a nothing. But they kept going, giving away CD's, T-shirts, and hanging out with their fans making nothing while on tour, and putting every dime back into the above mentioned activities. Well one day, we got word that they were coming back as a headliner. Yay we thought. Couldnt happen to a nicer bunch of guys. They still sat on the loading dock giving away CD's.

    The next year they were headlining large arena's.

    Sorry if this example actually requires hard work and dedication... something that greedtards despise.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    That movie specifically, didn't need anywhere close to 75.million to make. Guess how much of that amount is inflated and laundered by Night and WB?

    answer: MOST OF IT.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    icon
    Joe Publius (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:13am

    Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    I'll bite in 20 words:

    Sell products that I want, that are convient for me to use, at a price that makes sense to me.

    In the end, if a business can't fulfill that simple axiom, I don't engage in infringement, but I sure as heck don't buy. Details are a problem for the busniness, not for me as a consumer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    identicon
    Cozzy, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:14am

    Re: Thinking analog

    I take over 15K photos per year doing what I do, imagine how many cards I would have to buy if I kept the originals? Has anyone explained to your mom what a copy actually is in the digital age? Grab an original from her cards and copy it and let her choose the original. Zoom it to 1000% if you want and show her the pixels one by one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:15am

    Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    ...unable to answer how an instance of consumption without paying in any way results in more income for the content owner.

    Let's think about that one for a second, Blue. Hmm... can we come up with any examples of content being given away for free as part of a business model? I feel like there's gotta be something out there but dammt, you might just be right - I have never ever consumed any content without paying! That's why all TVs have coin slots.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:18am

    Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    How about "connect with fans and give them a reason to buy"

    Or the aforementioned "sell the scarce" (perhaps pared with "give away the infinite")

    Though I think the most comprehensive and succinct is "Ignore Blue"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:19am

    "Thinking analog" might actually work

    If you went to a library and photocopied all the pages from a book, the library would still have their copy, so it'd be silly to accuse you of "stealing" the book, since they still have it.
    Maybe the people running the MPAA/RIAA might actually be able to wrap their heads around that analogy, and finally begin to understand that infringement isn't theft.

    ...Oh, who am I kidding. Look at this woman's attitude toward potential customers. Just look at it. If you told her, "the customer is always right", she'd probably shriek, "BLASPHEMY!" and slap your face.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    icon
    Kevin H (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    Now you are just being cynical.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    No, I'm being a realist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:21am

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    The SOLUTION is A BETTER model BUSINESS!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    identicon
    into the green, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:22am

    Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    Day and date theatrical release worldwide.
    First run broadcast available on-line with ads 24 hours after air date.
    On line subscriptions for cable content.

    24 words problem solved.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:24am

    Re: Re:

    Poe and Godwin in the same post! Now all we need is the Greater Fuckwad Theorem and we're all set.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    At least they aren't stolen from kids books.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    identicon
    Colin, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:28am

    Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    Second, and I'm bolding this because it's important, solving large content distributors' business model problems is NOT the responsibility of the tech industry.

    Bolding means nothing. THIS or /this/ is how you note importance. Duh.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    icon
    Ccomp5950 (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet

    You are an idiot.

    You are also so far gone that pointing out how wrong you are only serves as an effort in futility, if you truly don't see anything wrong with what you originally wrote.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet

    God, what a chauvinist you are.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet

    I love comments like yours and manly Trails up there. The defenders of womanhood, who never consider if they may be talking to a woman to begin with. (After all, how can you tell? I don't remember posting pictures of my genitalia)
    Anywhoo...You want to see real chauvinists pigs? Look no further then the employers of Ms.Rose, the RIAA and MPAA companies.
    Can't get more chauvinistic then Hollywood my pretties

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:48am

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    Better business model!
    Better business model!
    Better business model!

    Everybody now!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:52am

    Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    Wait, let me see, I think I understand your argument.

    So, you want to sink $100 million into a movie? Why?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:55am

    So if a store doesn't sell what I want, I'm stealing it?

    So with that logic, if I was to buy an apple from a fruit store, and they don't have any in stock, I stole it.

    Let's apply this to a digital store. So iTunes does not have a song I want, yet Amazon MP3 does? Buying it from Amazon, I'm stealing it from iTunes or is it I'm not giving them my business? I think we all know the answer.

    Hilary, what has the RIAA done to your mind?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:56am

    Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    Better business model:

    Ok, you know that thing the recording industry is doing now?
    Well, do exactly the opposite.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    icon
    Kevin H (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 12:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    I guess I should have added the /sarc tag for you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 12:03pm

    Re:

    They're better, but any analogy will be flawed and useless as a basic for actual discussion on deeper points. The best you proposed is the "my friend lends me the screwdriver", but in order to be directly relevant he would somehow need to be able to retain the use of the screwdriver while it's in your possession. Not possible in the physical world, but in the digital world it's completely normal...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97.  
    icon
    Steve R. (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 12:08pm

    The Shifting Sands of Ownership

    The problem with Hilary Rosen's comments are that they purposely avoid the issue that the content industry is "stealing" from the public. The content industry has been claiming ever greater so-called property rights (land-grab) at the expense of both the individual and the public domain. So if she wants to stop "stealing" is she willing to go back to copyright law as originally passed in 1790? I seriously doubt it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    icon
    lucidrenegade (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 12:20pm

    Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    It's a /better/ /business/ /model/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 12:22pm

    Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    Ok, you know that thing the recording industry is doing now?
    Well, do exactly the opposite.


    Make good music and let people access it? Insanity!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    icon
    lucidrenegade (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 12:23pm

    Re: RE

    Dunno, but I dropped a turd the other day that looked like Lars Ulrich.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 12:27pm

    Re: Re:

    Ohai. Sure many will! Although I don't like it, in US admission = guilt (unlike France for example). If a douchebag admits it's extortion, no more proof is needed. At least in his cases.

    Sorry for offtopic (on a second thought, it's not: know what "sopa" means in Swedish? Applicable to copyright trolls).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 12:29pm

    Think Analogue? Why? We're talking about digital stuff here, not analogue. She needs to think Digital. That's why they still can't get how to make new business models. They are so trapped in the old ones and think of everything as analogue.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103.  
    icon
    el_segfaulto (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 12:33pm

    Re:

    On a site built on insightful comments, this is the best one I've seen in awhile.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 12:35pm

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    The solution is a better business model.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105.  
    icon
    el_segfaulto (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 12:35pm

    Re: Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    Does anybody else think of sed syntax when they read OOTB's comments? Or am I the only one geeky enough to do regular expressions on a daily basis.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106.  
    icon
    el_segfaulto (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 12:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    What a twist!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107.  
    icon
    Brendan (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 12:40pm

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 12:53pm

    Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    Pretty sure selling the scarce is exactly what they would like to do.

    But if offshore companies are illegally keeping your product from being scarce, what do think they are going to do?

    Sell t-shirts?

    Sorry, but they're not in the t-shirt business.

    So they go after those breaking the law and messing with the scarcity of their goods.

    I don't understand the surprise in them doing so. Or all this phony indignation about it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109.  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 12:56pm

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    The solution is most definitely a better business model.

    And just because you've stood with your fingers in your ears shouting "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" every time Mike offers examples of better business models doesn't mean he hasn't offered up one or two. In fact, I'm surprised you can hear anything at all.

    Your reading comprehension appears remarkably selective.

    P.S. The solution? A better business model. No, seriously. You've got the wrong end of this stick.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110.  
    icon
    AR (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 1:05pm

    Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    Before I answer in less than 25 words let me explain a few things first. With your vehemently defending the proposals and the industries, it seems as though you are either part of the existing industry or a "wanna be". With that said, when I say "you" I mean the industry. The thing to keep in mind is that nobody cares about you, your profits, salary, or your company. "Artists" will still be making content after your gone. Forcing the public to support an 80+ year old business concept (recording content for sale) with 30+ year old technology (disk shaped plastic medium) is totally illogical when newer and cheaper forms exist. Business models come and go. Companies come and go. Their leaders come and go. But the content is always there, and always will be. No one owes you a living and like I said, no one gives a damn. So if the people are embracing and demanding the new technologies but you dont know how to make money off of it, then thats your problem. ITS NOT OUR JOB TO FIGURE IT OUT FOR YOU!!! You are the real problem, not piracy.
    With that said here is your less than 25 word answer.

    The better business models are those that dont include YOU.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 1:10pm

    Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    "That cuts both ways, guys. IF you had a practical solution for the INDUSTRY, it'd have been adopted by now. You just keep asserting that the dinosaurs don't even /want/ to make /more/ money with new methods."

    No Blue, they wouldn't have been adopted by now. It took them practically 10 years to adopt mp3s. Ten years after the digital format was in use and pined for by the customers. And now streaming is becoming the "in" thing and how people want their products, and the content industry's are still trying to place "physical goods" costs/values on "digital goods". They're making changes but still doing so with an "analog" mindset. Mike routinely offers ideas and suggestions and presents articles on people who try new business methods. People like you come in here and denounce Mike, the artists he presents or make demands like "I WANT A GUARANTEE THAT I MAKE BACK MY $100 MILLION MASNICK!!!" You can't only repeat yourself and state so many new ideas for so long before you say "f*ck it, you don't want to know so I'm not going to bother telling you anymore".

    "You continue to decry copyright, while giving no other means for /artists/ to protect their works from Big Media (another point that cuts both ways)..."

    Actually, he continues to denounce ABUSE of copyright. Also ABUSE of laws to sustain old business models and industries that are failing to adapt. We see plenty of articles about artists who benefit from Creative Commons license or more traditional copyright and whose works are protected by said things. And please don't say "Big Media", you sound like bob. Big Media if anything are the ones screwing over artists with copyright as it currently is. That needs to change. Copyright was originally intended to be a limited time thing (as in under a decade). Now it's Life + 70 years (and very few if any artists benefit from that, it's various studios and labels who do). A drastic and ridiculous change when compared to copyright as it was originally envisioned.

    "You continue to dance around the problem of piracy -- of course nearly everyone here denies that they do it, so the whole area shouldn't even matter to you -- while saying that if you can't get what you want, then you WILL pirate it..."

    Mike has done no dancing around the problem of copyright. He acknowledges it, has stated it's wrong but he understands why it happens and has suggested that people just deal with it. It's going to happen. Focusing on only piracy and people who pirate instead of the customers you do have is going to hurt you in the long run. Your customers are out there, find out what they want. They'll gladly tell you. Then meet that demand. Ignoring it for whatever reason will also hurt you monetarily in the long run and push your customers to others who'll gladly provide them with what they want.

    "You continue to say that large numbers of artists (at least, rappers and mixers with cheap products, none who sink, say, $100M into a movie) are already using the power of the Internet to get around the gatekeepers, while pointing out that industry profits are up..."

    You and your fixation on $100M into a movie. Sigh. [shakes head in bafflement] Your fixed cost sunk into anything are not MY (as a customer's) problem. I don't give a f*ck if you spent $10 grand creating a movie or $100M. That's not my concern. I am willing to pay what is a reasonable price/value to me as a customer to have your product. If you don't like it, fine. That's your prerogative, I'll take my money elsewhere. But you don't dictate to me what you want. That's not how the market works. We, the customers, tell you what we think your product is worth. If you place the value too high and refuse to negotiate, we'll get what we want elsewhere and it's your loss. Great example, the HP Touchpad. At $400 it was not selling. Like at all. At $99, it literally flew off the shelves to the point that it was sold out (online and in-stores) within 2 days. People DID NOT think it was worth $400, despite what HP sunk into the product (which was $100s of millions, with the whole R&D and WebOS purchase). They, the customers, DID think it was worth $99 though. This is what we're trying to get into that thick skull of yours, Blue. Your sunk costs matter not to us. If you want guarantees, you're out of luck. If however, you want to make a buck, price accordingly in what customer's feel is an appropriate value for your product.

    "You continue to insist that piracy is actually good for the industry by "promoting" its products, while of course unable to answer how an instance of consumption without paying in any way results in more income for the content owner."

    Mike and plenty on here have pointed out how if you "pirate" a song or an album you might enjoy the music and the artists so much that you'll pay to go see them in concert or buy their merchandise or what have you. That is of course an example and an answer to how an instance of consumption without paying in any way resulting in more income for the content owner. Unless by "content owner" you mean the studio/label, in which case it isn't. But then again, they aren't content creators now are they? I hate seeing the "think of the artists" thing one moment and essentially "f*ck the artists" the next. Which is what you're doing. You're focusing on the studios/labels and to heck with the artists side of things. Then of course there are examples of people pirating games like Minecraft (and a few others) and becoming so engaged and amazed by the product that they then go on to purchase the actual product. Which to me is a "gained sale". I was unaware of your product, I pirated it, I loved it, I've bought it and the derivatives since. My gosh! A great example. I won't continue with others, you'll ignore them anyway.

    "Your positions are self-contradictory."

    Your positions are asinine. Your point being? We can go back and forth all day with you, if you're unwilling to be even remotely reasonable or listen to what we have to say why are we going to keep talking? In fact, if Mike is so self-contradictory and unwilling to give answers to you and your kind, why come here at all? You've made a threat to leave, so be gone already. People propose ideas and business models to you, specifically you Blue, all the time. You ignore them. Stop covering your eyes and ears and actually pay attention to what people are showing/telling you. If you're unwilling to learn, that's not our problem. That's yours.

    "Face it: your newfangled "digital" notions are a ZERO, not a one."

    Face it: your oldfangled "analog" notions are DYING, as in O-B-S-O-L-E-T-E. Adapt or don't. But don't b*tch when others are moving forward and you're stuck in the same place. Don't complain that there are no answers to your questions when you covers your ears and go "la la la I can't hear you". Don't come here if there's nothing worth coming here for (according to your own words).

    I'm done replying to you. AC out!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112.  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 1:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    "A realist is just a pessimist who is fooling himself."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 1:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    "But if offshore companies are illegally keeping your product from being scarce, what do think they are going to do?"

    Come up with a way of doing business that doesn't depend on forcing scarcity on to a good that's by definition infinite?

    "Sell t-shirts?"

    Why are you people so bereft of imagination that you can't think of any way of doing business that doesn't either involve blocking process or selling t-shirts?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  114.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 1:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    *progress

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  115.  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 1:21pm

    Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    And Valve has been losing money hand over fist by making TF2 free. Meantime, nobody can compete with free, so everybody in the world has stopped playing every other video game and has been playing TF2 exclusively.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  116.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 1:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    Pretty sure selling the scarce is exactly what they would like to do.

    But if offshore companies are illegally keeping your product from being scarce, what do think they are going to do?


    No see, I meant REAL scarcity. Not artificial scarcity. Digital music is not scarce and it's not "offshore companies" keeping it from being so, it's the very nature of the technology.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  117.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 1:24pm

    Re: "Thinking analog" might actually work

    If you told her, "the customer is always right", she'd probably shriek, "BLASPHEMY!" and slap your face.

    Actually I suspect she would agree wholeheartedly. But keep in mind that her definition of "customer" is someone giving her $20 for a CD.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  118.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 1:33pm

    Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    Good response. If I could, I would Insightful this comment a 100 times.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  119.  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 1:35pm

    It's ironic that she would tell us to "think analog" when she's guilty of binary thinking herself.

    What I find interesting is that when I did the web searches the most prominent answers I found resembled this one, where "binary" or "all-or-nothing" thinking turns out to be a psychological disorder.

    And here I was thinking that it was merely a logical fallacy. Silly me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  120.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 1:40pm

    Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    The Grateful Dead is a good example also.

    They connected so well with their fans that the Deadheads would take summers off so they could follow the band from city to city to see all of their shows.

    They were also one of the few rock 'n roll pioneers to retain ownership of their music masters and publishing rights.

    So, yeah, examples of better business models are out there, one just needs spend some time and energy on it instead of trying to get someone else to do the work for them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  121.  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 1:51pm

    Re:

    If you make something available in Europe but refuse to release it in the US for six months, and try to place barriers against the USians buying the item legitimately in the meantime, don't be surprised if they find ways around your barriers. If there are no legitimate ways they'll use illegitimate ways. (Substitute any two regions you like.) Locking out a group of customers and then complaining that they're not buying from you is a bit disingenuous.

    If you sell an item in American for $1000 (plus sales tax) and in the UK for £1000 (plus VAT), and then wave your genitals at the Brits when they complain about exchange rates, don't be surprised when they try to find ways to buy the items from US stores. Tell me, do you sell the same item in Japan for ¥1000? Yeah, I didn't think so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  122.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 1:52pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    It did. That cassettee tape you have of mixes of music like Carry On My Wayward Son, Tie Me Kangaroo Down and other immortal compositions obviously killed music...dead

    Quite dead.

    And all this rampant piracy will kill it even deader. We have Ms Rosen's word on it now. /s

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  123.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 1:53pm

    R.I.A.A.

    I see they are living up to their name.

    Real Ignorant Asshats of America

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  124.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 1:55pm

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but the truth is that the solution is a better business model. It's been mentioned on this site before I believe.

    This is the second time I've called your bluff about leaving. Put your money where your mouth is and do it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  125.  
    icon
    Someantimalwareguy (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 1:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    My synopsis omits nothing: his example is stark once some litter is removed. He's already pulled the trick necessary to be "right". Just read down to where he mentions and dismisses "sunk (or fixed) costs". -- STOP right there and ask how those could possibly be ignored... Only answer Mike gives is because he /says/ so. [When pressed by me later (in next link), Mike tries the line that "sunk (or fixed) costs" don't matter for /pricing/, but that's merely /continuing/ to claim having a (wanted and already promoted) movie in hand for only distribution costs.]
    The most important curve is actually the Average Variable Cost when determining the absolute minimum price in which a producer would be willing to sell their product or service.

    Ref: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/prodtheo.htm

    Fixed costs play into Total costs, but are those things that cannot be avoided. Ex: if you have a factory, your fixed costs may include insurance, labor, materials, utilities, etc. So they are important as far as total costs and where the Average Variable Cost determines the minimum price. Marginal costs actually include things like expected or required profits.

    The theory can get eye bleeding at times, but the gist is that Mike is correct in a general way regarding fixed costs as they are the costs that cannot be avoided in the manufacturing and engineering process. If you are going to make "X", then you are going to have to pay (at a minimum (A, B, C, etc). These costs are and should be factored into the final price, but also note that as a company losses monopoly rents with the advent of competition, the price tends towards marginal cost. this does not mean that it will reach marginal cost, but will tend there as a consequence of market forces.

    Once the price drops below marginal cost for any of the players in the industry, it is expected that they will fail and thus leave said industry leaving fewer competitors who are able to compete at that price break or introduce productivity gains that allow them to make more than their marginal cost which is then translated into higher profits.

    The kiker here though is that once the others in the industry make the same or similar changes, it opens up room in the game to more companies who see that they can makle a reasonable profit which is part of marginal cost calculations and the whole thing starts over again - in a perfectly competitive market.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  126.  
    icon
    A Guy (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 1:58pm

    Re: Re:

    It's nice to see others appreciating my work. I don't even feel cheated that no one paid me. It seems comedic art will continue to be created even without a government granted monopoly to protect it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  127.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:01pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Don't forget Wheaton's Law

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  128.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    hmm, equivocations.

    Define "real" scarcity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  129.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    I don't know who this Shalamalamadingdong character is, but if OOTB is the guy that did the Airbender movie then I want him strung up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  130.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    What a twit!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  131.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:08pm

    Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    Can I ask who this band was? Not being cynical or sarcastic, just trying to figure out who you're talking about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  132.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:12pm

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    "And if you say yet again "better business model", I just may LEAVE! "

    The solution is a BETTER BUSINESS MODEL.

    Take a hint, boy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  133.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:13pm

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    Other than the minor detail that we still have dinosaurs with us (we call them birds), instead of coming here to complain how about getting a business model (any business model) that will let you make that $100 million movie you carry on about?

    To be perfectly honest, if I was an investor in such things I'd be avoiding your project as a potential disaster if you need infringement (the proper legal term -- not theft) made a capital crime for even thinking about.

    And people regularly spend skywards of $100 million in Hollywood on movies these days so you're nothing all that special.

    You're the guy wanting to make the movie it's up to you to come up with a business model, not Mike, me or anyone else.

    I don't think I'd toss a loonie at a movie version of Hey Diddle Diddle anyway.

    I suggest you start off on a smaller scale like competing with the 5 year old up the street in summer in her peanut and lemonade stand and see if you can compete with her before talking on Hollywood.

    (PS: Loonie is the $1 CDN coin for those who don't know).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  134.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:15pm

    Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    "I see several repeating the phrase like a mantra as if it's an answer. NO, you need more than the bare phrase."

    You promised you'd leave if we kept repating it.
    Going back on your word of honor?
    Typical Republican.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  135.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:24pm

    Re: Re:

    Le CRIA: Pensez Analogique ®

    Le HADOPI: Ne Pas Pensez ®

    Sarkozy: ce que l'enfer? ® (lousy attempt at literally translating What the hell)

    I humbly admit that I used Google Translate. While I do understand and read French quite well I simply suck at writing and speaking ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  136.  
    identicon
    MM_Dandy, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:26pm

    Re: Re:

    That's right! No screwing without consent of the King!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  137.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    and if the nature of the product is not scarce but infinite why try to limit it, the "illegal company" knows it ans sue it to the fullest so why the one that make it cant use it in the same way ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  138.  
    icon
    Ray Trygstad (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:28pm

    If they aren't selling what I want, how could I steal it from them?

    If I understand Hilary correctly, she must be referring to merchandise that the store HAS IN STOCK but REFUSES TO SELL TO ME; correct? Let's stay it's a rocking chair. They have it--I want it--but they refuse to sell it to me because I just happen to live in the wrong geographic region for that model of rocking chair. So if I set up outside the store window with 12 board-feet of oak and all my woodworking tools and make an exact copy of the rocking chair, leaving their rocking chair still sitting in the store window, would she consider that to be stealing from them? (Oh crap, she probably would.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  139.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    Something that not everybody can do or are not willing to do.

    McDonald's didn't become a multinational because it was able to stop others from doing their own Big Macs, Coca Cola didn't had a hold on distribution until the 90's and many other real world examples didn't use a monopoly to do business, in fact every single business that depended on a monopoly has fallen to the sideways, what makes you believe you want?

    Governments? LoL

    Music, movies and books are a service treat it as such offer something that is good and people will give you money, don't and people will find other ways, legal or illegal. In the case of music there are enough legal options now, so why would people give musicians that don't show up at their local bars and venues to play? Why would anyone buy a apparel(i.e. T-Shirts, shorts, underwear or whatever) from people who insult them?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  140.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    Lets talk piracy, in Japan that have some of the stringent laws on earth, piracy is rampant, in Asia in general piracy is rampant, bootlegging is king, you know only people who do can bootleg those who can't complain how things are harder.

    And somehow they are growing, the problem is not piracy, the real problem is that consumers in "mature" markets are disillusioned they want something new to happen and they are looking everywhere for the next big thing and you dopes keep getting in the way of that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  141.  
    icon
    Grae (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet

    Not that I really care about the back and forth you guys are having there, but I just wanted to address your "The defenders of womanhood, who never consider if they may be talking to a woman to begin with. (After all, how can you tell? I don't remember posting pictures of my genitalia)" comment: a woman can certainly buy into sexist stereotypes of women, man can buy into sexist stereotypes of men. Your gender is irrelevant to the concept of whether you are or are not sexist against a particular gender. If you don't understand how this is possible I'd be happy to provide some examples.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  142.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:37pm

    Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    Please don't do that republicans and democrats are the same thing, Obama has gone back on his word a lot and he is a democrat.

    It would be better stated if you use the generic term for them all "crooked politicians", don't worry about people believing only a subset of them are crooked the population know every and each one of them are crooked, we all know the system itself is crooked and bad need of a fix.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  143.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:38pm

    Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    Let's see now, on one hand you talk about an INDUSTRY, then you flip to the argument that copyright is the only way creators have to protect themselves from Big Media who are the INDUSTRY.

    You're quite right it does cut both ways and you just stabbed yourself in the navel with it.

    You manage it again when you criticize Mike for his stance that some free distribution of, say, a song, is actually a promotion that often leads to more per unit sales for the artist. Note: The artist is rarely the "content" owner because Big Media, that INDUSTRY, you seem so keen on both protecting and dissing all at once, ensures that said artist has signed all copyright over to them in return for rarely paid "royalties" dependent on a number of factors including sunspots on the 4th of July for the artist to ever see a dime. (The latter is a variable though massive cost in how Big Media does its accounting.)

    In the meanwhile there's a thriving group of independent artists with access to good production equipment (and if you think it's all about mixing you're more ignorant than I imagined and that's going some). Most of who sell high quality songs and CDs across this evil thing called the internet and do very nicely by it if they connect with people who like their music. Y'know, fans.

    Keep twisting yourself into these knots and someone is going to mistake you for a pretzel and start dumping sea salt on you.

    It's almost too painful to watch.

    Almost though it says volumes about applying analogue rules to a digital environment which isn't going anywhere and has changed things like the rules of production and distribution. It's your notions that add up to a big fat zero because you refuse to see the changes.

    More importantly refuse to adapt to them. Refusal to adapt leads to extinction not false notions of things like "piracy" and false panics.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  144.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:40pm

    Re:

    [jerk mode]Limited binary thinking, binary trees can lead to infinity possibilities.[/jerk mode]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  145.  
    identicon
    Hilary Rosen, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:40pm

    SOPA

    Mike,
    I have been a reader of yours and Techdirt for a long time and I appreciate your passion and your brain. I am reluctant to get into this because I was really just playing around over the wekekend with my thouhts on SOPA. But you are interpreting my tweet to Jay wrongly and given that your words started this discusion, I will give you my thoughts directly. This is what you said in your piece: "Thus, the real issue is that this is a business model problem. As we've seen over and over and over again, those who embrace what the internet enables, have found themselves to be much better off than they were before. They're able to build up larger fanbases, and to rely on various new platforms and services to make more money.

    And, as we've seen with near perfect consistency, the best way, by far, to decrease infringement is to offer awesome new services that are convenient and useful. This doesn't mean just offering any old service -- and it certainly doesn't mean trying to limit what users can do with those services. And, most importantly, it doesn't mean treating consumers like they were criminals and "pirates." It means constantly improving the consumer experience. When that consumer experience is great, then people switch in droves. You can, absolutely, compete with free, and many do so. If more were able to without restriction, infringement would decrease. If you look at the two largest contributors to holding back "piracy" lately, it's been Netflix and Spotify. Those two services alone have been orders of magnitude more successful in decreasing infringement than any new copyright law. Because they compete by being more convenient and a better experience than infringement."

    And so my response was "Think analgo" not as in analog policy vs digital policy but think of the real world we live in and the ethical issues we face every day. My point wss that I can be pissed that the GAP doesn't have an outfit that is as stylish or fit as well as I want. And I can think that they arent serving their customer when they give me ugly clothes that dont fit well. ie: their busiess model sucks. But i don't think that gives me the right to take any of their clothese without paying for it just becaseu i am an unhappy customer. That was my oly point. Do I think that the content industry has moved waaay too slowly in putting their content online? Absolutely. Do I thinkthey could have been and should be more innovative? of course. But I also know that these are huge shps turning around in creeks and however easy the answers seem to you , they are often really hard. When people screw up their business, their sales go down. That has happened in the entertainment business. They are paying a price for their pace of change. BUT, there is also stealing. Pur old simple unethical stealing. Call it whatever you want - the march of technology - the inevitable cost of innovation, etc. To the writer or songwriter who makes their money on SALES, it is stealing.
    And while I love the dialog by for and about consumers and fans on these issues, I have no patience for big companies like Google who not only throw huge sums of money out there buying professors and economists and think tanks to kill any effort at copyright protection, they make a fortune on search advertising for those same illegal products.
    So, your first sentence was right, I have long been willing to shine an inattractive searchlight at my old compatriots. But I have no patience for the finger pointing and nastiness of the so called tech fans in this debate. Thank god I don't have to care so much anymore.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  146.  
    icon
    Jz (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:43pm

    Justifying Theft

    Some kid stole a car. He got kneecapped by a bunch of overly helpful terrorists and then arrested by the police.

    I nearly complained that it was a bit OTT but I didn't want to be accused of justifying theft. They said it would stop the kids stealing after all.

    The name RIAA should be a dead give away.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  147.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    Limp Bizkit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  148.  
    icon
    Hilary Rosen (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:45pm

    SOPA

    Mike,
    I have been a reader of yours and Techdirt for a long time and I appreciate your passion and your brain. I am reluctant to get into this because I was really just playing around over the wekekend with my thouhts on SOPA. But you are interpreting my tweet to Jay wrongly and given that your words started this discusion, I will give you my thoughts directly. This is what you said in your piece:

    "Thus, the real issue is that this is a business model problem. As we've seen over and over and over again, those who embrace what the internet enables, have found themselves to be much better off than they were before. They're able to build up larger fanbases, and to rely on various new platforms and services to make more money.
    And, as we've seen with near perfect consistency, the best way, by far, to decrease infringement is to offer awesome new services that are convenient and useful. This doesn't mean just offering any old service -- and it certainly doesn't mean trying to limit what users can do with those services. And, most importantly, it doesn't mean treating consumers like they were criminals and "pirates." It means constantly improving the consumer experience. When that consumer experience is great, then people switch in droves. You can, absolutely, compete with free, and many do so. If more were able to without restriction, infringement would decrease. If you look at the two largest contributors to holding back "piracy" lately, it's been Netflix and Spotify. Those two services alone have been orders of magnitude more successful in decreasing infringement than any new copyright law. Because they compete by being more convenient and a better experience than infringement."

    And so my response was "Think analog" not as in analog policy vs digital policy but think of the real world we live in and the ethical issues we face every day. My point was that I can be pissed that the GAP doesn't have an outfit that is as stylish or fit as well as I want. And I can think that they arent serving their customer when they give me ugly clothes that dont fit well. ie: their busiess model sucks. But I don't think that gives me the right to take any of their clothes without paying just because I am an unhappy customer. That was my ONLY point. Do I think that the content industry has moved way too slowly in putting their content online? Absolutely. Do I think they could have been and should be more innovative? of course. But I also know that these are huge ships turning around in creeks and however easy the answers seem to you , they are often really hard. When people screw up their business, their sales go down. That has happened in the entertainment business. They are paying a price for their pace of change. BUT, there is also stealing. Pure old simple unethical stealing. Call it whatever you want - the march of technology - the inevitable cost of innovation, etc. To the writer or songwriter who makes their money on SALES, it is stealing. (Even if they might be thinking about making their money another way.)
    And while I love the dialog by for and about consumers and fans on these issues, I have no patience for big companies like Google who not only throw huge sums of money out there buying professors and economists and think tanks to kill any effort at copyright protection, they make a fortune on search advertising for those same illegal products.
    So, your first sentence was right, I have long been willing to shine an unattractive searchlight at my old compatriots when they deserve it But I have no patience for the finger pointing and nastiness of the so called tech fans in this debate. Thank god I don't have to care so much anymore.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  149.  
    icon
    hilary rosen (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:46pm

    sorry for the double entry. the second one is spellchecked!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  150.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:47pm

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    /me drinks Kool-aid

    Burps



    The solution is a better business model.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  151.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    ALso, Henry Rollins walked out of The Tower Theatre ans stood on Ludlow St. and shook/signed autographs until the trucks were loaded, and it was time to go @ 3AM. Biohazard rolled dice on Ludlow St with their fans until every last one of them was gone. Peter Gabriel enlightened us at dinner in the Tower as to how he hated his label, sold loads of "albums" but still had to tour to make the real money. (Way before I cared) I could go on and on as I saw this kind of interaction for the 10 or so years I was a stagehand.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  152.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:56pm

    Re: SOPA

    Hilary, forgive me, but that Gap analogy may be one of the most horribly twisted attempts at making a point that I've ever seen in print. You've got so many things misconstrued (Gap makes ugly clothes, so you want to grab them for free? And from them, not a different place offering them for free? And, again, you don't like them? WTF????), I can't see how this even relates to SOPA or piracy in general....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  153.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 2:59pm

    Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    Not shitting on your customers aka A BETTER BUSINESS MODEL.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  154.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 3:07pm

    Re: SOPA

    I am sorry that you feel Mike misinterpreted your analog analogy, but this comment adds nothing to your side of the conversation.

    The problem with big labels and movie studios is that people want their stuff, but the labels and studios will not give the customer what they want.

    I know of no business that can succeed outside of a monopoly without giving their customers what they want. If I run a game store and do not stock the most popular games and consoles, people will leave my store and find them somewhere else.

    Same goes for movies, tv, music and books. People will get them where ever they can. It is up to the producers of the content to make money off that. If Netflix is bringing in money for film and tv while at the same time reducing piracy, then we need more Netflix, not more copyright enforcement. If Spotify is bringing more revenue in for artists, then we need more Spotify not more copyright enforcement.

    This is what these big labels and studios don't understand. Now you can claim that it is all about a "big ship turning" but the fact remains is that they have had plenty of time to turn but are staying true to their original and fatal course.

    Thank god I don't have to care so much anymore.

    Based on your analogies, it really shows that you don't care.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  155.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 3:09pm

    Re: SOPA

    Again, I get what your argument is, but your analogy falls down as it uses a scarce good. An infinite good (such as an mp3 file or a .mkv file) is technically infinite (as in, one copy is enough to propagate withoud end, at least in theory).

    Also, contrary to the belief of your previous employers and their ilk, stealing is not, and has never been, equal to copyright infringement in the US. There is an economic loss guaranteed in theft, as you lose the physical good. You copy the file in current forms of infringement. By all means, clamp down on those selling counterfeit DVDs and suchlike. That is not the problem.

    That major problem is, has and will be for the foreseeable future, that SOPA does very little to actually address what is completely and utterly a business model issue - here's a Protip: NEVER TREAT YOUR CUSTOMERS LIKE CRIMINALS!/u> It only serves to annoy people (see, for example, "UNSKIPPABLE ANTI-PIRACY AD OF DOOOOOOOOOOOOM!" on DVDs) and piss off legitimate customers when things don't work (see, for example, Ubisoft's Game Launcher that didn't work for certain games for months from launch).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  156.  
    identicon
    rubberpants, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 3:09pm

    Re: SOPA

    Suppose that you could make a shirt on your sewing machine that looked just like the one you wanted at the GAP. You could then wear a shirt that looks the way you want it to but you didn't actually steal a shirt from the GAP. Would that be wrong?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  157.  
    identicon
    rubberpants, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 3:11pm

    Re: SOPA

    Reported as a courtesy to hide this post, as it was unintended.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  158.  
    identicon
    Jon Bains, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 3:17pm

    Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    Heres's one: have a limited number of 'manufacturers' selling a self selected range of products of massively varying quality, control retail channels with an iron fist, ensure no new vendors can enter the market, feeding an addiction of your creation, whilst constantly jacking up prices and ignoring harmful side effects.

    D'oh forgot which industry that was for? Seems to have worked well for both so far

    hmmm perhaps they should take after those crazy swedes an consider legalising it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  159.  
    identicon
    Dwayne, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 3:19pm

    Re: Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    Think analogue, bro.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  160.  
    identicon
    rubberpants, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 3:27pm

    Re: Re: SOPA

    This hit's the nail on the head right here:

    I know of no business that can succeed outside of a monopoly without giving their customers what they want.

    No one is arguing that a business doesn't get to decide the terms under which they will sell their goods.

    However, they don't get to decide which set of terms will make them the most money, their customers do. (Unless you have a monopoly over something, then you can dictate whatever terms you want.)

    The Internet is doing an end-run around the copyright monopoly. So, which should we keep, the Internet or copyrights? Thankfully, it's not an all or nothing choice. We can adjust one or both so that they can exist together more harmoniously.

    Do we adjust the Internet only or is it more reasonably to adjust copyright as well? Seems to me that all the adjustment up to this point has all been on the Internet side of the equation (DMCA, etc.)

    It's time for copyright to make some concessions as well. Perhaps we should repeal some copyright laws. Then, there's no need to enforce as much. Maybe reduce copyright terms? Further limit the things that can be copyrighted? Outlaw the concept of perpetual royalties? Just brainstorming here. There are a lot of dials that could be adjusted.

    It's time "the Internet" started writing some bills of it's own methinks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  161.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 3:41pm

    Re: Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    Better business model to profit from a $100 million movie:

    Avoid spending $100 million in making a movie.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  162.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 3:54pm

    Re: Re: SOPA

    "BUT, there is also stealing. Pur old simple unethical stealing. Call it whatever you want - the march of technology - the inevitable cost of innovation, etc. To the writer or songwriter who makes their money on SALES, it is stealing."

    Actually, it's copyright infringement.

    You can't "steal sales". "Stealing" is meaningless when you use it for everything you disagree with.

    Steal a kiss? Steal an idea? Steal a base! We should make a law to outlaw baseball.

    Copying is not Theft
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=djVaJN0f0VQ

    If I play a song that you wrote, am I "STEALING YOUR SONG?"
    If I read a book aloud, am I STEALING THE WORDS?
    If I teach my children how to build a birdbath, am I stealing birdbaths?

    Being a politician is stealing, plain and simple. (plain and simple are mighty words that are often used to describe something that isn't plain nor simple... basically the equivalent of "it is because I say so, shut up!")

    Think analog. You wouldn't run a red light, so why are you looking at internet porn!
    Think analog. You wouldn't kick a puppy, so why do you play videogames!
    Think analog. You wouldn't burn a building down, so why do you flame in internet forums!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  163.  
    icon
    Kevin H (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 3:55pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Are you claiming to be The Great Trollholio?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  164.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 3:56pm

    Re: SOPA

    "BUT, there is also stealing. Pur old simple unethical stealing. Call it whatever you want - the march of technology - the inevitable cost of innovation, etc. To the writer or songwriter who makes their money on SALES, it is stealing."

    Actually, it's copyright infringement.

    You can't "steal sales". "Stealing" is meaningless when you use it for everything you disagree with.

    Steal a kiss? Steal an idea? Steal a base! We should make a law to outlaw baseball.

    Copying is not Theft
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=djVaJN0f0VQ

    If I play a song that you wrote, am I "STEALING YOUR SONG?"
    If I read a book aloud, am I STEALING THE WORDS?
    If I teach my children how to build a birdbath, am I stealing birdbaths?

    Being a politician is stealing, plain and simple. (plain and simple are mighty words that are often used to describe something that isn't plain nor simple... basically the equivalent of "it is because I say so, shut up!")

    Think analog. You wouldn't run a red light, so why are you looking at internet porn!
    Think analog. You wouldn't kick a puppy, so why do you play videogames!
    Think analog. You wouldn't burn a building down, so why do you flame in internet forums!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  165.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 3:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: SOPA

    Ack, what a mess. Posted below.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  166.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 4:15pm

    Re: SOPA

    Also, I don't see the "misrepresentation".

    Everyone figured out that "think analog" means "think horrible real-world analogy where whatever it is you're doing with your computer means crime".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  167.  
    identicon
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 4:42pm

    Re: “BUT, there is also stealing. Pur old simple unethical stealing.”

    Stealing is a crime. If people are stealing from you, why don’t you call the cops?

    If you find a shoplifter in your shop, do you call in your lawyers? Get them to file a cease-and-desist against the shoplifter, and threaten them with a lawsuit if they don’t stop? Maybe try to get the bus company to stop giving them rides to your shop, or ban them from the public transport system altogether?

    No, you do none of these things, you call the cops, and let the cops throw the book at the perp, probably put them in jail.

    Why don’t you do this for copyright infringement, then? Because it’s not “stealing”, that’s why!

    So fucking shut up about fucking “stealing”, already.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  168.  
    identicon
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 4:45pm

    Think Box Of Chocolates

    If I buy a CD or DVD, do I own just the CD or DVD, or do I own what’s on it as well?

    If I buy a box of chocolates, do I just own the box, or do I own the chocolates as well?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  169.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 4:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I am the great Trollholio! I need SOPA for my bunghole!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  170.  
    icon
    A Guy (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 4:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Whoops...

    I am the great Trollholio! I need SOPA for my bunghole!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  171.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 5:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet

    If you don't understand how this is possible I'd be happy to provide some examples.

    You might want to use sock puppets.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  172.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 5:32pm

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    And if you say yet again "better business model", I just may LEAVE!

    You're just a tease.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  173.  
    identicon
    Stephen T. Stone, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 5:33pm

    Re: SOPA

    Ooooh, an actual RIAA-type person willing to put a name to their post! This is exciting; I've never gotten the chance to openly debate one of you before. Let's begin!

    [M]y response was "Think analog" not as in analog policy vs digital policy but think of the real world we live in and the ethical issues we face every day.

    In the real world, the RIAA has screwed over numerous artists with its favor-the-label accounting practices and copyright trickery (especially in regards to sampling), sued its own customers for daring to not go through a paywall to experience new music, and attempted to prevent MP3 players from becoming popular before they were popular. How's that for some real world ethics, hmm?

    I have pirated music. I'm not afraid to admit it right to your face. But regardless of what you and the RIAA cronies might say about pirates to Congress or the Supreme Court or any other political forum, I don't do it to slight artists or "stick it to the man" -- I do it because I want to experience new music, and up until the proliferation of iTunes and Creative Commons-licensed music, I wasn't able to do so in a easy and timely manner. Napster -- the first P2P network I ever used -- made it easy for me to find new music (and old music), including obscure works by artists that the RIAA either passed over or forgot existed. I still pirate music from Japan on an irregular basis because, excluding buying said music from super-expensive CD importers, there is no legal method of obtaining this music in the United States.

    If you want to talk about ethics, let me know what kind of ethics make the RIAA want to continually push copyright forward into infinity and make it harder for people to legally purchase/support musicians from around the world.

    I don't think that gives me the right to take any of their clothes without paying just because I am an unhappy customer.

    Simple question: when I pirate a song from SoulSeek, what have I taken? Has the original master recording of a song disappeared from its storage place? Has the artist behind the song lost the ability to perform it? What is being stolen when I pirate a song?

    Oh. Right. "Theft" is a metaphor that you and the RIAA use to conflate stealing a physical product with illegally copying a copyrighted digital file that doesn't disappear when I download it off a server or someone else's computer via P2P. That's just the ethical thing to do, though, right?

    (Note that I am not condoning or supporting piracy. I know it's illegal. I just choose not to give a flying goddamn about copyright law because I believe that copyright law only serves the interests of the corporations who rely on copyright law as a way of avoiding adapting to new business models.)

    Do I think that the content industry has moved way too slowly in putting their content online? Absolutely. Do I think they could have been and should be more innovative? of course. But I also know that these are huge ships turning around in creeks and however easy the answers seem to you, they are often really hard.

    Gee, I can't imagine how it got that way. It couldn't have anything to do with the RIAA bogging the waters with copyright law, bad accounting, and not giving a damn about artists' rights -- right?

    [T]here is also stealing. Pure old simple unethical stealing.

    Yeah, I bet that the RIAA can't stand it when technology steals the opportunity to set up a new walled garden for music.

    To the writer or songwriter who makes their money on SALES, it is stealing. (Even if they might be thinking about making their money another way.)

    "I was telling kids, 'Download it illegally, I don't care. I want you to hear my music so I can play live.'" ~ Kid Rock (an artist contracted by an RIAA label, last I checked)

    I have no patience for big companies like Google who not only throw huge sums of money out there buying professors and economists and think tanks to kill any effort at copyright protection, they make a fortune on search advertising for those same illegal products.

    Technology companies like Google should just be good little bitches and get back in the RIAA's kitchen, right? They should just lie back and take having their technology and their innovations stifled and legislated out of existence by politicians who are bought and paid for by the RIAA and the MPAA and other big media companies, right?

    This sounds like more of those RIAA "ethics".

    I have no patience for the finger pointing and nastiness of the so called tech fans in this debate.

    We have no patience for people who support legislation that will fundamentally alter the foundation of a global communications network to protect a few legacy business models that said businesses can't (and won't) fix without being forced into it.

    We have no patience for people who support the most heinous attack on the First Amendment in years just because they want us to "think of the artists" (the same artists that the RIAA has metaphorically bent over a chair).

    We have no patience for people who don't want to see the future. We have no patience for people who want to revert technology back to the past. We have no patience for people who have no idea what the hell they're doing.

    We have no patience for the RIAA. We have no patience for the MPAA. We have no patience for their lobbyists and their paid-for political representatives.

    We have no patience for you and your kind.

    The world has changed. The Internet has changed it. If the RIAA and the MPAA and the other big media corporations refuse to change with the rest of the world, then I believe that they should start digging corporate graves for each other.

    We have the power to communicate, to share, to enable new experiences and come together as a society thanks to the Internet -- and the RIAA wants to destroy how the Internet works just to make sure Lady Gaga's next single doesn't get downloaded by even a single person?

    You might want to rethink your "ethics", Miss Rosen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  174.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 5:52pm

    In fact, in the post that was being discussed, we clearly noted that infringement is a problem.

    I believe it would be more accurate if you had said "Infrigement is a problem that content producers bring upon themselves."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  175.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 5:54pm

    Re: SOPA

    Thank you for participating in this discussion Ms Rosen.

    The copying of a song and posting it somewhere is not a digital analog for the physical shoplifting of a shirt from the GAP cause you're pissed the one you wanted isn't there.

    In the case of your illustration there is one less shirt, a physical entity, at the GAP. In the case of a digital copy of a song on the internet the original still exists and can still be sold, which it most often is and copies of that are sold repeatedly by members of the Industry group you formerly headed at a tiny fraction of the cost of pressing an extra copy in the world before the mp3. (Sonic cesspools that they are notwithstanding.)

    My biggest problem with the playing of the artist card by the RIAA and MPAA is that they both have a track record of moving heaven and earth not to pay the artists they now claim to want to protect. Enough do to maintain the fiction that one can make even a lower middle class existence as an actor, writer or member of a band but that doesn't change the reality of what has frequently been called "creative accounting" by the RIAA, MPAA publishers and others who employ artists. I'm not asking you to defend such practices nor wanting to start an argument about it but let's be honest here and state that the RIAA and MPAA and publishers are interested only in their own existence and the artists themselves are not part of the equation. The only job a privately owned company has is to make a profit which is then shared with its shareholders. I doubt there's many artists as shareholders in member companies of the RIAA, for example.

    So if I take the liberty of rephrasing "To the recording company who who makes their money on SALES, it is stealing." I would have more sympathy with the statement though I'd then want look into whether or not digital copies are actually depressing sales or increasing them in the long run. I strongly suspect the latter. That, though is a discussion for another time.

    The matter at hand is SOPA and proposed laws like it are an over reaction to a still rapidly changing marketplace or not. Not too surprisingly for me, they are an over reaction. Not only that but they amount to protectionist legislation interested only in protecting the members of the group you used to head, for example, than the artists the group claims to represent. These laws are being put in place to protect the profits of the likes of Universal or EMI and not the income of artists. Some or maybe a lot of us see through the smokescreen.

    The only thing that the member companies of the RIAA can be legally concerned with is making a profit for their shareholders being publicly traded. It's those profits the RIAA is attempting to protect not artists or musicians.

    I would hope that the large ships of the entertainment industry weren't attempting to navigate in a stream though it would go a long way to explaining the staleness of product coming out the pipe to consumers long before piracy became an issue. It may, as well, explain the RIAA member companies inability to adapt to changing technologies and methods of communications.

    As for Google, at least they understand that should SOPA pass that in the long run it's pointless. Just as it was pointless for opponents to free speech and other changes wrought by the printing press were pointless as governments attempted to control them by criminalizing a number of activities associated with them.

    All messing with DNS does, for example, is mess with a "direction sign" on the internet which is something easily overcome and all, in the long run, telling payment agencies not to deal with something does is cost them money both in the short and long runs.

    Bills whose collateral damage includes censorship by design or accident do nothing to bring "tech fans" or the public onside with ever tightening copyright laws. Taking these laws far beyond their original intent won't do anything other than broaden and stiffen resistance to them far beyond the "tech fan" group and well into the public realm as the laws as represented by SOPA bring things like the administration of justice into disrepute and respect for it reduced. It was tried with the printing press and it failed. It will fail here for much the same reason.

    The people that will pay the price are employess and shareholders of member companies of the RIAA and MPAA and, should the rejection be strong enough THEN we'll be forced to start again with copyright so that the artists do, actually get paid. I don't want that to happen but I'm historian enough to see the wave coming on shore again because people forget history's lessons.

    By the way I am a writer and I do like to get paid for my work from time to time. But this is the wrong way for me to get my cheque because that cheque probably won't ever come. It does now.

    One cannot "steal" a lost sale, incidentally. There are plenty of songs that don't sell for reasons far beyond piracy and plenty of books, poetry and other written works that aren't ever sold for reasons far beyond piracy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  176.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 6:29pm

    Re: SOPA

    Ms Rosen-

    Thanks for replying.

    The vast majority of these people are gigantic douchebags with no ethics whatsoever, so they most certainly did not deserve your grace.

    cheers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  177.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 6:34pm

    Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    What a gigantic load of horse shit.

    People aren't sampling and then buying.

    People are ripping it off, listening to it all the time on their ipod, and never bothering to remunerate the artist.

    Fuck you for being such a lying slimeball.

    Go die in a fire.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  178.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 6:41pm

    Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    You don't want mantras, and yet you want a silver bullet in 25 words or less?

    Oh, that's right; I forgot that large paragraphs give you tummyache.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  179.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 6:46pm

    Re:

    "Rent seeking rights grab"? I did not realize that either of these bills, or the one before them, substantively amends Section 106.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  180.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 6:51pm

    Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    You need a better business model or else I will go somewhere else and get it no matter if what I do is illegal.

    I know I could get good stuff for free legally, but I do not want that stuff, I want yours.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  181.  
    icon
    ECA (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 7:02pm

    besides the improper english in the tweet..

    Imfringment?
    Shop me your business plan.

    Show me a movie worth seeing on a BIG screen, without a preview. NOT a short of the best scenes, and MOST of the movie.
    Show me a movie worth $10-20 for 2 hours of CRAP..IF I wait, I can buy the movie AFTER you find it sucks, for $5-10 in the DVD bin.
    Show me a DECENT game, not CUTS from a movie or the intro..
    Show me a game I can PAY $50-70 for, and play and enjoy for more then a few days.

    I HAVE forked over good money to play online games..
    Iv QUIT, online games, for changing something that made the game into CRAP.

    HOW do you save money? how do I stop all the companies taking my MONEY away. Items designed to BREAK..Computers in your Stove/frig/washer/dryer..everything.. a $0.05 resister insted of the $0.15 one that lasts forever..
    Im no long Penny'd to death, ITS DOLLARS NOW... I dont need pockets any more..I AINT got no money..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  182.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 7:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    Can you show me proof/evidence that "people aren't sampling and then buying"?

    Because all the evidence and studies show to the contrary. The "pirates" are doing the most buying. I.e. they like what they find and they then go out and pay for even more stuff. (Note: These studies are being done independently. From non-biased sources/groups.)

    "People are ripping it off, listening to it all the time on their ipod, and never bothering to renumerate the artist."

    Again, I'd like to see some proof of your "gigantic load of horse shit". Because evidence shows to the contrary. People are acquiring things and then giving money to the artists elsewhere. Either through purchase of merchandise, other media they've produced, and/or the more popular concerts/shows. (This applies easily to film as it does music.) And that money goes DIRECTLY into the artists' pockets. As opposed to say the coffers of middlemen.

    "Fuck you for being such a lying slimeball.

    Go die in a fire."

    Well, one could say right back at you, but that'd mean sinking to your level. Of which, as much as I want to do, I shan't do just because I am better than you and an adult. I do not need to resort to ad homs to make a point. I can make one using logic and facts. I haven't presented any in this article (as in actual links) because you haven't either. I'm of the mind that you can state things and not back them up, I can do the same. (Except of course my data/facts/evidence are REAL and readily available and easy to find online.)

    AC, grow up or get lost. The adults are talking here. We don't need your childish posts cluttering up screen space.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  183.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 7:35pm

    Re: Re: SOPA

    Why do we need grace from someone who worked for people that think nothing of suing children, grandmas, dead people, homeless people, printers and iguanas?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  184.  
    identicon
    Dave, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 9:42pm

    Re: SOPA

    I think, Hilary, (may I call you Hilary?) that you seem to have a fundamental disconnect in your thinking. Every time you create an analogy to support your point of view, you use physical property as your example. This Gap analogy is a perfect case in point. Ignoring the fact that there wouldn't even be a reason to shoplift from a store that has nothing you want, it still just doesn't fly. If you take a shirt from the Gap, it is gone. They no longer have it. The materials, the labor, the transportation costs that have been sunk into that particular *actual* shirt is now gone.

    Now, let's contrast that with digital goods. Whether you want it or not, you own the copyright to your post. I just copied it into twelve different notepad windows. Did you notice? I then saved the copies. Zipped them up and emailed them to ten different people. Still your post remains. Did you feel anything as I violated your exclusive right to distribution? A great disturbance in the force, maybe? I'm guessing, no. However, anyone who has inventory records for the Gap store can verify if each of the shirts that are now gone have been paid for or not.

    To really understand the issues of "analog policy vs digital policy" you have to wrap your head around a key point: Any comparison of intellectual property to actual physical property will fail. Ultimately, if you are trying to make your thought patterns say "copyright infringement = stealing" you have warped your thinking to a point where you just won't understand what is happening in the real world. Which, by the way, includes the so-called "digital world", and denying that also warps your thinking. But that's another post.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  185.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 10:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    Equivocations? Are you daft?

    The distinction between real and artificial scarcity is not exactly hard to understand. An apple is genuinely scarce: if I give it to you, I don't have it any more. A JPEG of an apple can only be artificially scarce: if I give it to you, I still have it, unless a law forces me to delete my copy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  186.  
    icon
    techflaws.org (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    Sorry, but they're not in the t-shirt business.

    Sorry, but noone cares.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  187.  
    icon
    techflaws.org (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:24pm

    Re: Re: SOPA

    so they most certainly did not deserve your grace.

    So they most certainly did not give a damn about her grace.
    FTFY.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  188.  
    icon
    techflaws.org (profile), Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:38pm

    Re: SOPA

    I have no patience for big companies like Google who not only throw huge sums of money out there buying professors and economists and think tanks to kill any effort at copyright protection, they make a fortune on search advertising for those same illegal products.

    Bullshit. It's another one of those reality distortion fields you and your ilk keep living in because you just can't stand reality (and of course you are jealous as hell that Google found a way to make money on the internet).

    Google has no obligation to proactively monitor other people's content, there is NO reason why they should do your job and be a copyright cop. They search alogrithms which naturally also find stuff deemed illegal by some. Why should they have to employ people to try to test what actually is? Because you say so?

    And make no mistake, even without Google News, Google Books, etc. they would still be insanely profitable just because they're doing a good job at search. Curiously enough you don't see any of those rightsholders complain about all the free traffic they receive from Google.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  189.  
    identicon
    madjo, Nov 28th, 2011 @ 11:55pm

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    You leaving, is that a promise?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  190.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 12:58am

    Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    "Fuck you for being such a lying slimeball."

    Yes, thank you for your intelligent input. Truly, you are a master debater.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  191.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:03am

    Re: Re: SOPA

    It's nice that Ms. Rosen actually bothers to debate people who disagree with her, even if she has dropped to the level of fools who think that anybody who disagrees with them must be a pirate. It's totally wrong-headed and an indication of the poor thinking that led to the problem we're seeing today, but at leas she's started accepting that there are people out there who disagree despite having the reasons for that totally wrong.

    "these people are gigantic douchebags with no ethics whatsoever"

    Sadly, morons like you are undermining her. My ethics are that I want the major label rip-offs to cease, and that new models are utilised that use modern technology for the benefit of consumers and artists alike. Apparently, my "lack of ethics" is that that I understand that the business model that worked in 1996 is no longer viable and I'm not willing to destroy the future to protect short-term profits for a failing business. Sadly, you people are unwilling to even entertain the idea that people can have an honest opinion that doesn't agree with you paid shills. Sad, but I'm here whenever you want an adult debate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  192.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:13am

    Re: SOPA

    Dear Ms. Rosen:

    Thank you very much for actually responding to the post. Most people don't. You should be commended.

    Having said that, I vehemently disagree with a number of your statements.

    And so my response was "Think analog" not as in analog policy vs digital policy but think of the real world we live in and the ethical issues we face every day.

    Indeed. And the fact is, the "ethical issue" you face right now, is whether to allow people to share their enthusiasm about music.

    The Internet is a tool that is designed to facilitate person-to-person communication. It literally has no other purpose. None. Now consider what "communication" means.

    If a person likes an album by an artist, it is far easier to simply share the music, than it is to communicate in some other manner (writing a review, or even saying "hey, check these guys out"). Copyright infringement is the same as communication.

    Given that, how do you think that stifling communication is an "ethical issue"? If anything, wouldn't you be on the wrong side of that ethical issue?

    But I don't think that gives me the right to take any of their clothes without paying just because I am an unhappy customer.

    Well, luckily, that is not what anyone does. They simply create THEIR OWN CLOTHES without paying the Gap.

    Incidentally, it's rather ironic that you bring up clothing - because fashion design is not covered by copyright. Those clothes at the Gap, that you don't want to buy? If they had been covered by copyright, they would be illegal to manufacture. You would not be able to buy them at all. And stores like the Gap would not hav ever existed in the first place.

    BUT, there is also stealing. Pure old simple unethical stealing. Call it whatever you want - the march of technology - the inevitable cost of innovation, etc. To the writer or songwriter who makes their money on SALES, it is stealing.

    Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you: copyright infringement is not stealing.

    And you should be glad of this fact... because copyright infringement is punished far, far harsher than theft ever was. Steal 23 CD's? You'll get maybe a small fine, and a slap on the wrist. Share 23 CD's through Napster? You'll face jail time, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.

    Here's the message that sends to the youth of today: If you want to steal something, simply walk into a record store and take it. Because if you do exactly the same thing on the Internet, you'll be hunted down by the FBI and ICE. It's much better to just steal something, than it is to download the same thing from The Pirate Bay.

    I have no patience for big companies like Google who not only throw huge sums of money out there buying professors and economists and think tanks to kill any effort at copyright protection, they make a fortune on search advertising for those same illegal products.

    Here, we see how much you are, truly, full of shit.

    Google does not, and has never, "made a fortune on search advertising for illegal products." Most pirate sites use ad agencies other than AdSense; and whatever money Google might have made from those sites, is pure peanuts compared to their overall AdSense revenue. Combine this with the fact that Google has voluntarily cut off sites it thinks is infringing (and wrongfully so, in many cases), and you're totally and completely full of shit.

    And it's also a total lie that Google (or anyone else) has "throw[n] huge sums of money out there buying professors and ecomonists." The professors and economists who have come out against SOPA and PROTECT IP have received no money whatsoever from Google to write those opinions.

    Compare that to someone like Floyd Abrams, who wrote his "analysis" of the First Amendment concerns of this bill at the request of the RIAA and MPAA, who were (and are) his clients.

    In fact, those who are advocating SOPA and PROTECT IP have outspent their opponents by 10-13x. Yes, that means that for every $1000-1300 spent by you, your opponents have spent $100. And we're still winning the battle, because nobody likes these bills, except for your former clients, and not even all of them are on board.

    Now, I realize that you might not take me seriously, but you should. After all, I am a musician, who earnes some cash (though not a living) from music sales. If even I can see that you're totally and completely full of shit, what message does that send to all the other artists out there?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  193.  
    icon
    Marcel de Jong (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:25am

    Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    You told us you'd leave if the answer was "Another business model".
    Another broken promise. I knew I should've listened to my mom when she told me not to believe blue people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  194.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 2:28am

    Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    You know, I can't make a living selling cupcakes these days, and YOU have to give me a solution for the problem! That's right, YOU! I can't be pissed to do it for myself, even though it's my business, and these raporist pirates keep stealing my flour.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  195.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 2:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    I know you provided evidence, but you're wrong 'cause NUH-UH!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  196.  
    icon
    Nelson Cruz (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 2:30am

    Logic

    By the same logic anyone who questions the death penalty is justifying murder.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  197.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 3:03am

    Re: SOPA

    I see lots of others have replied (busy day), but wanted to chime in as well:


    My point was that I can be pissed that the GAP doesn't have an outfit that is as stylish or fit as well as I want. And I can think that they arent serving their customer when they give me ugly clothes that dont fit well. ie: their busiess model sucks. But I don't think that gives me the right to take any of their clothes without paying just because I am an unhappy customer. That was my ONLY point.


    As others have pointed out, this does not clear things up, and only makes the issue more muddled for a variety of reasons.

    1. Nowhere in my post did I say that not offering something justified breaking the law to get it. Reading that into what I wrote just doesn't make any sense.

    2. No one's talking about taking something away from a legitimate seller. They're talking about making a copy. Multiple people here have already explained the difference. After so many ears in this battle, I can't believe you still don't understand the difference.

    3. If the business models enabled via all this makes the artists' better off in the long run, is there really a moral question?

    4. People aren't "pirating" because they're "unhappy customers." They're pirating because they're underserved customers so they go to look for the same product elsewhere. If I don't like the pizza at the corner shop, and I go and eat at the competitor across the street, have a "robbed" the corner pizza shop? Based on your reasoning, I have. That's ludicrous.

    But I also know that these are huge ships turning around in creeks and however easy the answers seem to you , they are often really hard.

    No doubt. But these industries have had over a dozen years and *their only choice* is to adapt or drown. I recognize that it's difficult in practice, but if you don't turn it around, you drown. At some point, you would think that you and your friends would STOP BLAMING THE PEOPLE SHOWING YOU HOW TO TURN THE BOAT AROUND and would start listening as we guide you into making that difficult turn.

    BUT, there is also stealing.

    There is infringement. Which is illegal -- we agree. But it's not stealing. Using that language does not help. It's like arguing that you won't use the ropes we're throwing you to help turn the boat around, because it's made of a fabric you don't like. Closing off your best option to turn the boat around because you have a preconceived notion that something is "bad" is not a way to adapt.

    Pure old simple unethical stealing.

    Except that it's not.

    To the writer or songwriter who makes their money on SALES, it is stealing.

    No. It is not. It's a changing marketplace. And those who have adapted are doing better than ever. That certainly suggests that it's not stealing at all. It's a marketplace challenge. Some are adapting. Some are failing. Blaming the failure on "stealing" when there's proof all around that others have adapted seems pretty pointless.

    And while I love the dialog by for and about consumers and fans on these issues, I have no patience for big companies like Google who not only throw huge sums of money out there buying professors and economists and think tanks to kill any effort at copyright protection, they make a fortune on search advertising for those same illegal products.

    Not this myth again. The RIAA/MPAA folks always attack Google, but this is barely a Google issue. And, honestly, pulling out the "buying off" people claim is pretty ridiculous for the RIAA and MPAA who have a LONG history of doing much more than Google has ever done.

    Many of the people protesting these bills have no connection to Google whatsoever.

    And as for "the fortune," that's a joke. Look: Google Adsense doesn't generate much revenue at all -- especially among "pirates." These people are not clicking on Google ads (trust me, many read this site, and we make bupkis from Google ads -- you and I could sit down for a nice dinner with my last month's Google check and we'd still have to top it off with some cash from our own wallets). Google only makes money when people click. And people aren't clicking on ads on pirate sites.

    I don't know why the RIAA/MPAA's of the world continue to believe this myth, but they do. It just shows how little they understand of how the internet works, or how Google works.

    But I have no patience for the finger pointing and nastiness of the so called tech fans in this debate.

    The fingerpointing has been almost entirely in one direction. ANd it's all at Google. And it makes no sense if you actually understand what's going on. Best I can figure, a bunch of folks in the entertainment industry are jealous that Google is successful, upset about their own failures, and through the magic of correlation, they assume that Google somehow "took their money." This is laughable if you understand how these things work.

    You should know better than to go down that road.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  198.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 3:06am

    Re:

    I believe it would be more accurate if you had said "Infrigement is a problem that content producers bring upon themselves."

    No. That wouldn't be accurate. The problem comes in the form of a market change. They don't bring it upon themselves. But they do have the power to make it worse (or better) and many seem to choose to make it worse.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  199.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 3:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet

    And yet still, neither you, nor the idiots above pointed out how me calling her an idiot is fucking sexist.

    God, you people are morons.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  200.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 3:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet

    Fuck off nasch, go masturbate to your own posts like you always do.
    Fucking asshole

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  201.  
    icon
    Just John (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 4:12am

    Re: Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    Have you noticed he whines about "how do I do this" and fails to realize it is a business?

    So, I want to start a business too.

    My rules?
    I don't want to have to work, but I want to have buckets of money thrown at me.

    None of that fancy "risk vs. reward" stuff, just money coming in because I want it to.

    So, who has my business model?

    I expect to see it in 1 week, and 100% garenteed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  202.  
    icon
    Just John (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 4:23am

    Re:

    Of course, once the 3D printers becomes good enough, I am going to illegally download those screw drivers like mad, since I am of course a nasty pirate.

    Maybe I should change my name to "Pirate John".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  203.  
    identicon
    Paul Keating, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 4:24am

    THINKING like a log = anal-log thinking

    THINKING like a log = anal-log thinking

    Fact: Driving too fast is dangerous for children.
    Fact: Drug dealers sometimes use cars and drive too fast.
    Fact: Drug dealers are bad.

    Solution: Allow any random Mom (or Dad) to call the police to “report” the “fact” that he believes his neighbor was speeding.

    Remedy: Allow the police to seize the neighbor’s car.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  204.  
    icon
    Just John (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 4:26am

    Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    Except, the facts are against you.
    The industries are still making money...
    So, we still do not see why something needs "fixed".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  205.  
    icon
    Just John (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 4:34am

    Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    Actually, we have it all wrong.

    SOPA/PIPA is their better business model.

    First, it starts by passing these laws.

    Now they have the keys to the troll gate, which means we must pay or they will eat us.

    Next, they start removing things arbitrarily from the internet, until people reach a point that they are willing to pay enhanced "trollway taxes" that the industries will collect.

    Once they have these in place, they will open the internet up again until they decide it is raise time. Once that happens, they will tighten their grip for their "trollway taxes", and increase the tax.

    See, then they get to collect more money simply by squeezing, instead of actually having to innovate and compete.

    Guess OOTB is right, they already have a better business model. So, time to bend over and pass the lube.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  206.  
    icon
    Just John (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 4:46am

    Re: Re: "Thinking analog" might actually work

    I disagree.
    Because, you would have to be in the right region, or else you could hand her the $20 and still not get her CD/Book/DVD.

    So, I will go with AC on this one. Or else you need to broaden that to "$20, in the right place, at the right time".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  207.  
    icon
    Just John (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 4:57am

    Re: Re: Re: SOPA

    Can I do the first commandment?

    THOU SHALT NOT STEAL, but feel free to right click and save as...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  208.  
    icon
    Just John (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 5:09am

    Re: Re:

    I think his "Bring it upon themselves" is more a reference of failure to adapt, rather than being the ones who brought the change into being. Basically, they brought the "current" situation on themselves by not adapting in a time that customers have many other alternatives (See Napster), and instead fought tooth and nail until they were forced to adapt (In the small ways they have to date).

    Poor word choice, but I understand what he means.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  209.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 6:23am

    Re: Re: Re: SOPA

    uh, no.

    Taking something without permission is a douchebag move.

    Sorry your parents raised you so poorly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  210.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 6:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA

    I'm sorry you didn't pass 3rd grade. If you had, you'd understand the words I'm actually typing instead of whatever deranged fiction you just responded to.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  211.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 6:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA

    "Taking something without permission is a douchebag move.

    Sorry your parents raised you so poorly."

    You're right, taking something without permission is a do*chebag move, as you not so eloquently put it. HOWEVER, MAKING A COPY OF SOMETHING AND LEAVE THE ORIGINAL BEHIND, THUS NOT TAKING IT, IS NOT A DO*CHEBAG MOVE, AND PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE AND OKAY TO THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  212.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 6:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA

    I forgot to add the following:

    Sorry your parents didn't teach you basic reading comprehension and the ability to distinguish between actual theft of something and making a copy of something and not stealing. There's a world of difference. One the courts and most people with no bias have acknowledged and accepted.

    Perhaps you should do the same.

    I love how you debate points properly though. /s

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  213.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 7:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA

    You don't have permission to take that breath you just did.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  214.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 7:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA

    "uh, no.

    Taking something without permission is a douchebag move.

    Sorry your parents raised you so poorly."


    Your mommy dresses you funny.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  215.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 7:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet

    And yet still, neither you, nor the idiots above pointed out how me calling her an idiot is fucking sexist.

    Well, except for those post above that pointed out how you calling her a "valley girl" whose "daddy will buy you that new convertible" is incredibly fucking sexist.

    If you had simply called her an "idiot," that would still be insulting, but not sexist.

    God, you're a moron.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  216.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 7:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet

    If you think he's saying the sexist part was "calling her an idiot" then I don't think you're capable of understanding the point. Your reading comprehension is severely flawed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  217.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 8:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    The concept of artificial scarcity goes hand in hand with intellectual property. Always has.

    So what?

    Once again, providers of IP are not in the t-shirt business.

    They are recognized as providing a valuable service and governments have thus given them protection under the law for centuries.

    Might want to accept that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  218.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 8:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    "The concept of artificial scarcity goes hand in hand with intellectual property."

    No it doesn't. It used to go hand in hand with managing resources and/or making the most of limited physical goods, but most of those market realities are irrelevant when considering digital goods.

    "Once again, providers of IP are not in the t-shirt business."

    Once again, you have a ridiculous obsession with a tiny part of the options available to the industry. No wonder you fail.

    "They are recognized as providing a valuable service and governments have thus given them protection under the law for centuries."

    The service is contributing to culture and the common good, not making profit because they'd rather restrict the market to whatever suits them over their potential customers.

    "Might want to accept that."

    I accept reality. Maybe you'd do well to do the same.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  219.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 8:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    Artificial scarcity most certainly goes hand in hand with IP. I suggest you read up on economic theory.

    I find the rest of your comments argumentative opinions that have no basis in fact.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  220.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 8:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    Ah, the usual tactic. "You're wrong". Not a hint of any reason, nor any attempt to address my points, just a brushing aside. presumably to disappear to the next thread and try calling me a pirate again. (Are you the idiot who called me a pirate today because I tried to understand the economics of porting games, or was that another AC?).

    You may feel smug, but you still look like you don't know what you're talking about. Feel free to explain to me why you're not - try adding facts, though. Bare assertions really don't help.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  221.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 8:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    Wasn't me, sorry.

    Are you going to read up on economic theory and understand why artificial scarcity goes hand in hand with IP?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  222.  
    icon
    Ccomp5950 (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 9:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ewww, that tweet

    Doesn't matter what dangly bits you have. Being a woman and a chauvinist are not mutually exclusive.

    What's next "All my best friends are black" when called out upon racism next?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  223.  
    icon
    Almost Anonymous (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 10:19am

    Re: Thinking analog

    """Thinking analog leads to complete idiocy like my mother having a drawer full of 16GB SD cards that are 'full' and she won't erase them 'because they are the originals and I don't want to lose quality!!!'

    So, we buy her more cards for Christmas. Merry Christmas SD card makers."""

    Dude, that is so awesome, thanks for posting this!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  224.  
    icon
    Almost Anonymous (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 10:24am

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    And if I may pile on:

    The solution is a better business model.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  225.  
    icon
    Almost Anonymous (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 10:32am

    Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    Stop suing your customers. Put your shit online without DRM for them to buy any time and any place. This is six more words, yay!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  226.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 10:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    Artificial scarcity most certainly goes hand in hand with IP.

    Actually I think you're right. IP used to involve a natural scarcity, but as it started getting easier to reproduce, copyright laws were put in place to restrict that abundance and replace the natural scarcity with some artificial scarcity. Now there is no longer any natural scarcity; it's purely artificial.

    I think you are missing the mark on the purpose of copyright law though, at least in the US.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  227.  
    identicon
    JB, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 12:53pm

    Thinking analog

    OK, sure, I'll think analog. If a store's having problems with robberies, should they be allowed to shut down the local sporting-goods store because they sell ski masks? I think that's a better analogy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  228.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:27pm

    Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    Maye we don't need the industry any more.

    If they can't turn a buck, maybe they deserve to wither and die. They had a good run.

    Since they can and are turning over bales of cash, maybe they are just being greedy.

    And the real bottom line here is that the industry can't do what they are trying to do. The community won't allow it, and we have many many smart, motivated people that do this stuff for fun rather than because it's their job. We'll route around and through your laws, and show you up for the fool you are, every time.

    Piracy has been around since music was written on parchment and sold on the street. You can join in and try to find a way to make it work for you, or you can fight and fail.

    It's way more fun on our side.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  229.  
    identicon
    another mike, Nov 29th, 2011 @ 1:44pm

    Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    Sounds like you need an innovative new method to more effectively monetize your audience.

    a.k.a. A Better Business Model

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  230.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 5:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!

    It's one of life's deepest pleasures to be involved in a debate where I can read/listen to reasoned argument for another point of view. I get to encounter viewpoints and evidence that I may have missed or overlooked coming it my conclusions about things. This includes Ms Rosen, below.

    Sadly it doesn't include you.

    I didn't think I'd said anything about sampling then buying in my post but now that you mention it there's good evidence that such things do occur. At least according to the independent folks I know and mention above. 100% of the time? Of course not. But even then they're getting heard and making sales because of it. Not 1 for 1 but sales. Same way it worked in the days of AM top 40 sans the royalties paid by the radio stations most of which didn't make it back to the artist either.

    But still it stands to reason that having not said it I can hardly be a LYING slimeball. Slimeball, perhaps, which only shows you need to be careful where and what you step in. As for committing sexual acts on a slimeball I understand that's very uncomfortable, cold and not at all satisfying. And you need SOS pads to get the slime off.

    As for dying in a fire, no thanks, I use those to stay warm on winter nights not to cook myself or others in.

    Take care and remember the idea when starting a fire is not to hurt yourself or others. Of course that means your age I find that unlikely. (Emotional and mental age, that is.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  231.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 29th, 2011 @ 11:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    Are you going to tell me what I'm missing, or are you expecting me to read the entirety of economic theory to work out what the hell you're talking about? If the latter, see you later troll. I say troll, because you're apparently unable to back up the most basic of your own assertions in your own words.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  232.  
    icon
    Trails (profile), Nov 30th, 2011 @ 1:53pm

    Re: Re: SOPA

    "you and I could sit down for a nice dinner with my last month's Google check and we'd still have to top it off with some cash from our own wallets"
    Mike Masnick inappropriately hits on Heather Rosen!! News at 11!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  233.  
    icon
    Ben (profile), Nov 30th, 2011 @ 1:57pm

    The RIAA's 10 commandments (new vs original)

    ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
    RIAA: 'You shall have no other content creators before Me.'

    TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
    RIAA: 'You shall not make your own content in case it's similar to ours, or is better than ours and results in a lost sale'

    THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
    RIAA: 'Don't pass off your stuff as our stuff'

    FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
    RIAA: 'Go to the theatre on Sundays. Corn farmers need income'

    FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
    RIAA: 'Take them to the theatre too. We need to inflate the box office figures'

    SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
    RIAA: 'We're saving that tactic for when SOPA fails'

    SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
    RIAA: 'It's our job to fuck people'

    EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
    RIAA: 'You shall not steal our infinite digital content'

    NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
    RIAA: 'Don't blame your neighbour for downloading movies on your open WiFi connection'

    TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
    RIAA: 'Don't borrow any of your neighbours DVDs, BluRays, MP3s or CDs. Don't watch his TV through his window or listen to him humming the latest song he heard on the radio. That represents a lost sale'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  234.  
    icon
    Nick Dynice (profile), Nov 30th, 2011 @ 8:44pm

    Re: Re: SOPA

    Kind of like the Congresspeople completely void of ethics that take support from immoral RIAA lobbyists? Or is that the "good" kind of no ethics?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  235.  
    icon
    Anonymous Coward (profile), Dec 1st, 2011 @ 11:10am

    Re: SOPA

    Hi Hilary Rosen,
    PLEASE write out 1,000,000 times:
    Infringement is not theft......

    Your assignment (even though you won't accept it) is to actually learn the meaning of the words theft (to remove property so that the owner no longer has it) and infringement (the improper use of a patent, writing, graphic or trademark without permission, without notice, and especially without contracting for payment of a royalty).

    So, stealing ugly clothes you don't like removes the property from the rightful owner. Copying an MP3 file does not remove possession of work from the rightful owner.

    It is impossible to solve a problem if you can't even use the correct words to define the problem. No one will understand or care about the problem if you keep saying "Run a Green Light" when the actual statement of the problem is "Run a Red Light". Using the wrong words to frame the problem (especially with a very bad analogy) will not help to move towards a solution.

    Now start writing out your punishment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  236.  
    icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), Dec 1st, 2011 @ 1:18pm

    Re: SOPA

    Thank you, Hillary, for opening up a discussion with us mere consumers of media. This is exactly the thing we need the most: An open discussion with all players involved.

    We consumers are not allowed to have any input on legislation like the DMCA or SOPA, but self-interested parties like the RIAA and MPAA get full access and even get to help draft the legislation. Yet they wonder why pirates don't care about copyright.

    The politicians never get to hear talk about more relaxed copyright laws so that it's something a consumer can respect. All they hear about is making it stronger so RIAA and MPAA members can make more money, because politicians equate more money with more jobs (which isn't true at all). Yet they wonder why pirates don't care about copyright.

    I never hear about the government investigating the deceptive accounting practices of the movie and music industry, or any official uproar over the multi-page user agreements one must unconditionally agree with just to legally purchase a single song on iTunes. Yet they wonder why pirates don't care about copyright.

    Nobody in Washington talks about how a century of culture - which defines who we are, shapes us, and gives us unity and identity and is shared by all - is owned by a handful of multi-national corporations and will be for the rest of our lives. Yet they wonder why pirates don't care about copyright.

    Politicians don't talk about how much of the profits on copyrighted work from artists long dead is only benefiting the lawyers and accountants and CEOs of these corporations, when those works should be available to the public at large. Yet they wonder why pirates don't care about copyright.

    All the government seems interested in is addressing the whims of big business - the RIAA or Google. There seems to be no interest anymore in helping the regular consumer. I guess it's because big business hires people like you to keep constantly knocking on their door to push their agenda - something regular consumers can't do. Yet they wonder why pirates don't care about copyright.

    There's no question that large scale infringement is happening online. The question is what to do about it. SOPA is not the answer. How about we start with some copyright laws that everyone can respect? Maybe then we lowly consumers will have some sympathy for the RIAA and MPAA's woes.

    You want to bring ethics into this, there's a few places to start. That's analog thinking.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  237.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 1st, 2011 @ 7:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    Valuable service?

    What is so valuable?

    The monopoly that they granted themselves and extended to perpetuity?

    The monopoly on story telling, on singing and dancing?

    I don't see that as valuable I see that as a real problem to be solved and that means ignoring the law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  238.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 1st, 2011 @ 7:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?

    My suggestion to you is to throw out that book and start fresh, those old ideas don't translate to the current environment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  239.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 5th, 2011 @ 5:53pm

    Re: Thinking analog

    "My condolences to the RIAA on not being able to discern reality anymore."

    What do you mean "anymore"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  240.  
    icon
    Philip (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 12:05pm

    And your reply on Twitter?

    I would have replied back, via Twitter: "analog != digital. Think digital."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  241.  
    icon
    ECA (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:23pm

    I WANT

    a clarifying statement from them on the MEaning of Theft.
    Theft
    Piracy
    sharing
    Ownership

    Piracy, in MOSt of their meaning is Theft and resale/profit.
    Theft, would be just getting the program, and using it yourself.
    Sharing, demands ownership. but, if its stolen, can you really OWN it?

    OF all the problems in the market. Availability, accessibility, sampling...selection of WHAT a person wants and likes.
    Even going to the Big BOX stores. ISNT helping them. The Stores cant keep a LARGE selection onhand.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This