4 years to develop. 1 year running. This is what failure looks like.
Millions of dollars spent on a system designed to create new "law" that the corporations demand be in place to stave of their bankruptcy all while having record years. A system still not vetted by an expert, who was never on the RIAA payroll before, and looking forward to continuing income "monitoring" the program. Using a software package that clearly states how they are using it is in violation of the TOS. A system fronted by someone who's claim to fame is she worked for AOL. An advocate supposed to be representing the rights of the citizens who parrots the party line of holding someone accountable because they pay a bill is perfectly fine. A system run by a company so "good" at what they do they DMCA'd a client's own website trying to sell content to consumers as pirated material.
Of course they are going to claim the system works, otherwise the labels & artists might question why the fsck they keep pouring money into these **AA pipedreams that NEVER EVER work as promised.
In the same time and for probably less money, they could have created a system that pwned the crap out of everything else out there to sell content at the price the market wants and made another fortune. Instead they focus on the illusion that they have a right to keep control over what people do with what they purchase, rather than remember they are in the business of selling content to consumers.
The next time a lawmaker proposes that tax dollars support this industry, perhaps it would be best to ask why. Record sales, record profits, record salaries, and enough money left over to waste on shit programs all while staying the course with a business model everyone else can see is outdated and in trouble.
Here's to CCI. You've lied, and lied, and lied all while you're being paid for doing jack shit to "solve" a problem by using a Rube Goldberg machine. That "problem" could easily have been solved for much less time and money had you just told the emperor he is naked. But good on you for subverting the legal system with your own kangaroo court.
If only the law opened the door in the US to 'reasonable' awards like a multiple of the market value rather than the $150K cannon, then it might ACTUALLY force them to meet consumer demand and make more money than before without the help of the courts.
Zoe Keating @zoecello I don't think so, it's promo. RT @juliettrowe: Is it time for #soundcloud and #bandcamp to pay artists for streaming?
How is it with all of the money taken in "for the artists" by the old gate keepers, artists are always looking for more?
I think it also exposes the problem of thinking the 'art' matters so much more than the platform. When is the last time a platform went on and on about these 'artists' bleeding them dry because they don't pay for the use of the platform? Perhaps because the platforms have figured out other ways to get paid while offering the service for free rather than just demanding someone else pay them for their work.
While the other streaming services have talked about being bled dry, it is by the old guard gatekeepers demanding more and more (and artists who don't pay any attention beyond how little the label gives them vs how much the label collected in their name).
So they aren't stopping terrorists. They have been caught on several occasions using this power to do things that benefit corporations. And yet somehow they still claim this is the right way to do things.
Perhaps we need to think about the right way to make the government afraid of its people and not its corporate backers again.
I've figured it all out. Because it has taken so long for material to be released in Oz, they want to extend the copyrights so that there is a reason for corps to finally get around to releasing it to 26 million potential customers. If there wasn't copyright there would be no money in doing it and Oz would never get these things.
Or they could point out that content no longer needs to be sailed to Oz, that the "internet" could let them get content there even faster and that they will not change the laws to suit companies who treat them like Ike treated Tina.
But then I live in a fantasy land where it should not be Governments job to protect a business model that refuses to move forward and become more profitable.
Wow you mean giving someone a monopoly in an area might encourage them not to compete? But the market is supposed to fix everything. We hand them all of this money to wire things and provide access and they manage to fail at that. Can we get refunds?
Because it is the "simple" answer that allows them to pass laws to "deal" with the problem. To hold the actual party responsible would require work and effort, where if you can just hold the "owner" responsible it becomes so much easier to deal with.
The public likes to assume that even if an innocent person gets caught up in this, the system will work as they expect and the innocent will be sent on their way.
This is just bad lawmaking to get money flowing. Technology is always "perfect" so it is easier to assume it is correct and not consider that the income it provides might make those profiting not look to close at the system.
Really? You mean like those kids online that claimed some lawyers were breaking the law and extortion money from people? And all the powers that be said no no no that never happens. And then like people found out those lawyers were breaking the law and extorting people.
We got there by discussion and not by using a tool for copyright to censor something we didn't agree with. People challenged our claims and we provided MORE evidence, not DMCA notices that aren't valid - but because the DMCA doesn't punish anyone who misuses them they get used for all sorts of things to silence speech and criticism.
Because rulings in his case can be cited in other cases, and help shape laws. Someone can run around with this story about how horrible this was for (pick a side) and we need new laws to "fix" the problem what will be hamfisted and stupid and violate many peoples rights to make some others feel vindicated and that "something" was done.
The internet is a great target for overreaching laws, and cases like this are the foundation for bad things happening.