"sounds like a steal alright, but most certainly not in favor of the writer."
Not really. It's better than the offer they currently have (zero income, and if you try you'll probably be shut down and/or sued). Writers always have the option of altering the story to remove references to other works if they wish to publish without this protection for higher cuts. True, the cut could be higher, but we don't know how much of that 65% is being demanded by the copyright holders or how much behind the scenes work is actually involved to guarantee compliance (all work done on the author's behalf for no up front charge).
I agree with your second point, but what's the alternative, really? Without this move, fan fic languishes in an area where the author can't profit, and any attempt to shut down freebies is bound to backfire on the copyright holders in some way.
Re: Is there really a market for paid-for fan fiction?
It will be interesting to see how this goes, but I'd say it's down to quality. The terms seem to indicate that the stories will need to adhere to certain rules, and as they're published by Amazon they will possibly have some form of editorial oversight.
So, rather than "pure" fan fiction, you'll get something that's more like a standard authorised novel. That is, you'll probably get something approaching a novel based on the universe you'd buy in the shops anyway, with the advantage of ideas coming from random authors rather than pre-approved commissioned authors who may or may not have any passion for the original material. It may also be more likely for a current show to take the direction suggested by fan fiction if it's officially licensed and published - giving fans a way to direct the show in the way they prefer.
So, if the quality of the paid work is higher, or even leads to new material in the canonical world of the original then it's definitely better than the free stuff. If not, well, there's nothing that can stop true fans from writing and sharing what they wish.
Well, you do have a clear choice ultimately. Amazon still allow you to self publish through them without demanding exclusivity or ownership. However, they can't allow you to do this with straight up fan fiction due to legal liability. So, you can accept their terms and publish fan fiction with the relevant restrictions in return for the name recognition and legal status that this gives you. Or, you can do a 50 Shades and rewrite your story to remove the references to copyrighted characters and publish freely with rights retained. This is just one avenue that Amazon are offering, not an "accept these terms or don't get published" that the legacy guys offered.
I'd also say that this setup could be due to licensing rather than a deliberate move by Amazon. That is, rather than allow a blanket licence for every author, the rights holders are only willing to grant permission to a book solely owned and published by Amazon Publishing.
Well, if you ignore all the innovation, of course there's none. Name one other service doing this for authors at the moment.
"Yet another success story where a modern company becomes a middleman."
As opposed to who? Publishers? Retailers? Half the people you try to defend are also middlemen. Being a middleman is essentially what Amazon do - and they're successful because they're very good at it.
"will likely turn to greed if one of the works gets developed into an actual TV episode or movie"
"You fail to realize that the piracy issue is what forces us into an incredibly deflationary environment that in the end will hurt you as the consumer."
..and the answer is to rape clubs so that they can't afford to operate any more, kill off avenue for independent musicians and charge organisations for music they haven't even played?
"Yeah, bank on Spotify and prepare for what will happen to your carefully curated playlists once Spotify doesn't work the way _you_ want it to work any longer."
If Spotify change their business or are forced to shut down, I will use an alternative service, or just revert to other ways of listening to music. I pay for Spotify (among other things) because it's convenient and gives me what I want as a consumer. Taking that away will not make me magically start buying CDs or spend 10x the money to get the same music. Is that through your thick skull yet?
You're a moron if you think that there's only one way to get music, but you're also a moron to demand that people who already pay for music should pay again because your cash cow of selling plastic discs is no longer enriching your beloved industry.
"But go on... dream..."
Judging by your comments in the paragraphs above that sentence, you're the one dreaming. You're living in a fantasy world. You have to invent strawmen to attack because the people you're addressing aren't as easy to attack as you wish they were. Virtually nothing you've accused me of bears any resemblance to fact.
You're inventing fiction. Why won't you debate reality? Too hard for you?
"In my professional opinions (yes I'm now A+ Cert working on Network+ Cert)"
No offence Wally, but unless you have lengthy actual professional experience to back it up, the A+ does not make you a professional in the field. It's an entry level certification that even the COMPTIA website lists as "the starting point for a career in IT". It means you're qualified to fix PCs and mobile devices up to a certain level, not that you're an expert in any field.
You can certainly use your studies to make informed opinions in some areas, but in professional terms you're barely a newcomer, let alone a seasoned professional. Your opinion is welcome, but please stop waving around your basic certificate as if it makes you an expert. Enjoy the Network+ and hopefully that will lead to better things, but once you pass it you won't be an expert on networking.
""Let's forgive indiscretions of the past" says the guy who mentions the Boston Strangler in conjunction to Jack Valenti whenever the opportunity arises"
The deliberate public statements made by a mature adult in direct relation to his employment showing how clueless he was about his own industry are somewhat different to some dumb crap a teenager does that ends up online without his permission, don't you think?
"I admire your optimism that people will do the right thing. We all live in a small town now where everyone knows what you did and what you're doing."
I believe the point of the article was "we can't effectively erase things from the internet, so it's down to society to accept that these things happen when people are young and adjust opinions accordingly". Ultimately, everyone growing up in the fully online era is going to have things like this in their history. So, it's in everyone's best interests not to judge, say, a 30 year old based on something online from when he was 12. It might take a while, but that's definitely a more achievable goal than erasing a person's entire history from the internet.
So, you have no facts, just a fantasy where you paint yourselves as the victims and ignore people who actually pay for music? You won't answer the realities of the market (tough shit, I pay for my Spotify subscription, not the €20 CDs you people fantasise about forcing people to buy again). Figures.
Your lies and distortions don't work, so don't pull that crap with me. FACTS or GTFO.
"And if you don't like the music business, why don't you start a label and treat the artists they way you feel is right!"
What an idiotic statement. No, I won't I'll just continue to pay for music in the way I wish from legal sources and pay for the gigs and merchandise I wish to buy. If you don't like that, so what, that's reality - deal with it.
"your notion that a few bad lawyers should mean end all copyright."
Makes a change from your constant obsessive lying, such as the above falsehood. Seriously, you can tell when there's no way to defend the actions of despicable people in certain stories, because all you guys can do is whine that they're written about!
OK, then... Just provide citations for all your claims and you can consider the article corrected. Sorry, anonymous comments without citations are not corrections.
Oh, and most people don't care what GEMA members want. If the market is trending towards flat fee subscription services, then that's where it's heading. I know the labels would dearly love to charge multiple Euros for each song, or even their wet dream of pay per listen, but if the consumers don't want that you can't force them to pay in the way you prefer.
Sure it can. Just provide me with logical reasoning, factual evidence and be open to reasonably discuss any issues I have with those things provided. I can't guarantee that I'll agree with you, but at least I'll see your point of view.
The problem with a lot of discussions here is that the people who oppose the articles rarely bring any of those things (although the times they do are often very enlightening).
"Fundamentally, it's the same reason why few people (if any) would be prosecuted for banging out a copy of a CD for a friend, but like Tenenbaum and Thomas have shown, you can get in trouble for doing it for your "internet friends you don't know"."
It's actually a wildly different set of circumstances that bears almost no relevance here. "It's on the internet" is about the only similarity.
"Scale is a really big issue here."
What scale? I still have one apartment to rent out, whether I'm using it myself, letting friends stay there or letting people I don't know stay there. The actual activity is identical. That's why there's a fundamental difference between copying digital files and physical items, and why the idiotic "it's stealing" argument is idiotic.
"So if someone got injured during a short term rental, who would cover the costs?"
The homeowner, or another party agreed to before the rental. If insurance is a problem, make it a law that any website allowing people to rent in such ways has to have either insurance or an explicit opt-out between the two parties before a rental takes place. It still won't stop the same problems with the thousands or millions of the same circumstances happening without the internet involved, but since that's what seems to send people into paranoid delusions, do what's necessary.
The other stuff you're blathering on about is related to occupancy. If you're scared of people renting out an apartment to 6 people instead of 2, make sure the sites have a listed occupancy maximum and an agreement not to violate that (although again, this CANNOT be enforced normally as it is).
"When you rent a flat long term, you accept to cover your own liability and legally, the landlord is not liable for hazards that you create yourself, and only needs coverage for the building itself."
Which is covered in contracts. So change the law to make sure contracts include this.
Do you see what I'm getting at here? Fining people for not following laws they didn't know they had to follow and trying to stop people using interesting and useful services is idiotic. Everything you're complaining about can be taken away as an issue.
"It would only take a couple of people .."
So, where are the concrete examples of this happening? AirBnB has been running since 2008. Couchsurfing since 2003. Stop depending on bullshit "what if" scenarios and show where these things are actually a problem. People have been renting short term and subletting to strangers via newspapers since the classified ad was first invented. Where has this been happening enough to make it an issue that needs to be addressed?
Evidence first, then laws if required. Get it? Stop projecting fantasies, show me the reality.
To be fair, that's a subdomain of go.com - the TLD registrar has nothing to do with it.
But, there's plenty of problems raised by the hard of thinking above - if I for example register piratemovies.com, am I setting up a source for pirated movies, or a perfectly legal fan site or merchandising site for the Pirates Of The Caribbean movies? Nobody knows until the site is built, and that's got nothing to do with registrars.
Because lawyers don't really care about the publicity and reputation aspects as long as they get paid, and the companies have been conned into thinking they need aggressive copyright and trademark defences from the lawyers. Until they wake up and realise that the collateral damage can actually be worse than whatever they're defending against to begin with, it will continue.
If the building doesn't already have sufficient fire exits, why does the fact that people staying from an internet booking instead of just living there change the fact that this is a problem? If it's an occupancy problem, the same issue is raised from a guy having a few friends round for a party, do you want NYC to shut down all parties and large family gatherings too?
That's a matter for the IRS, not zoning laws. In fact, AirBnB would have records of everything booked, unlike someone who rents his room from an ad on his company's notice board or under the table via friends or family. Why do you want to make enforcement of taxes more difficult?
"Imagine the hidden cameras, or running through your luggage"
This happened to a friend of mine in a big name Vegas hotel, and there's plenty of stories around about licensed premises having all these things happen. You're deluding yourself if you think that renting an apartment suddenly makes this an issue. If you're talking about the ability to prevent people from renting their apartment out, you can't actually prevent that in any realistic way (they can still rent via word of mouth) but law enforcement can request AirBnB to block that person/property from advertising.
"perhaps re-renting a property that they don't own and have in fact just broken into"
Imagine if he's secretly running a zoo and has a tiger in one of the closets! Cite somewhere this is actually happening, or STFU. Fiction is not a basis for law.
"I would hate to live in a "secure" building in New York, only to have a stream of strangers coming in to spend a single night at the condo on the same floor as me"
Then isn't that down to the building's management? What if the guy who owns that apartment just lets his friends crash there after a night out on the town or has a large family who often visit? Should the law attack them as well?
"Closely focusing only on the technology, and forgetting that the transaction happens in the real world with all the risks and legal implications that come with it is classic."
So, you just ignore all the articles where those aspects are discussed, especially given that most of the "hating" is down to real, demonstrable experiences people have with the bullshit being opposed. Typical. I think we've found our new troll, and he's not very good.