I find it interesting that on two stories since Friday you started going on about how "if you don't follow the rules you have to pay the price" (my summary of your comments). Then on this story you say basically the opposite, that Auda can bypass its own rules on disputed domains and it's just fine and dandy.
"Now, Tourism Vancouver is running Olympic logos, which means they may be a media partner of the games. Potentially, that means that what is on their site might actually be cross licensed to the Olympics. NBC in turn is a American Olympics partner. So you could see how NBC might have gotten the story to work from."
If that is the case then I would imagine a (hopefully) quick explanation of this to the original author would sort this out. But instead of an explanation they removed her name from the article, that seems to imply something else is going on.
"The bar owners lost a default judgement, where as they likely could have licensed up for a couple of hundred dollars. Instead, they ignored over 128 attempts to contact them AND ignored all the court related stuff."
Mike clearly said it was a default judgment. Stated clearly that the restaurant owners failed to respond to the complaint[s] and failed to show up for court, and clearly said that both were big mistakes on the part of the restaurant owners.
"That isn't the license cost, that [is] the rate they seek in the lawsuit when you fail to license"
Where is a license cost mentioned in the post? Just reread the post and the answer is: nowhere. Mike is talking about the judgment amount not a license cost from BMI.
"It's a nice try once again to smear collection and licensing organizations, but the reality is that the bar owner screwed up, and probably 48,500 out of the 49,000 is because of their stupidity, not BMI."
And from reading Mike's post, it's clear the bar owners screwed up big time. How is it misinformation if everyone is coming to the same conclusion: the bar owners screwed up.
Quoted from the Ottawa Sun: "An example is a recording of 1950s singer Gale Storm. Big labels don’t press them but seniors still want to buy them so he orders them from import distributors, Nolan said." (emphasis mine)
You're saying they should buy from the domestic company, but the domestic company does not offer a domestic version anymore. How exactly do you buy a domestic version if the domestic version doesn't exist?
But the bar is using the arcade version of Guitar Hero. If you follow the link about the demand for a license from the venue you will notice the post where this all started. It has a subject of "Any ops having problems with Guitar Hero arcade?" Now that appears to be asking about the arcade version of Guitar Hero, so why the talk about the home version?
Ever hear of an arcade machine? They've been around for a few decades, and the makers of Guitar Hero actually put out an arcade version of the game. And with a price tag of about $8,000 for a new machine I'm guessing they are meant for commercial use. So, are you claiming that an arcade game meant for commercial use isn't licensed for commercial use?
"Actually, there is plenty of moral outrage in Mike's post, it's the whole concept."
Well this is a blog where Mike gives his opinions on various news stories. This is a fact that he doesn't try and hide. You are free to create a blog and post whatever opinions you have on basically any topic you care to post about.
"What is funny to me is that the technique used is very similar to people infringing on copyright every day."
Wait, what? So, are the infringers suing the copyright holders now? If true, that would be very funny.
"Basically, they make it outrageously expensive for the copyright holders to take them to court, to win a judgement that can never be satisfied."
Again, the copyright holders are the ones sending out infringement notifications and threatening to sue. They are also the ones (in most every case) that have the resources to financially bury anyone they accuse of file sharing.
Did you click through to read the linked articles? If you had you would have seen this quote from the author in question: "I am the one and only owner of the copyright of all my books (they are in print for more than 10 years) presented on my site."
and this one: "I have my books published on paper. I gave to the publishers permission to publish them on paper and to sell them during several years. Besides I gave them non-exclusive right to print my books. So this is NOT their content and never will be."
I had a feeling that analogy might be a miss. Oh well.
But the point I was trying to make is that the first AC was confusing the 'too many people on the network' with 'one user hogging everything'. But with either case, it's as you said, they need to go ahead and build out the infrastructure more instead of just charging us more for using it.
Do you understand what they mean by "bandwidth hogs"? I know car analogies are kind of hit or miss but I'll try one anyway. Think of your internet connection as an interstate highway. Many interstates slow to a crawl because of the sheer number of cars that are trying to get somewhere during rush hour. This is similar to what is likely happening in your area, so many users are trying to browse the internet through the routing hub you are on that it slows down dramatically. This can happen even if all of the users are using about the same bandwidth.
Now lets put a large truck on the interstate, and lets have that truck carry an oversize load that covers all of the lanes of the highway. Even in moderate traffic there will be a backup of traffic behind this truck because traffic has a hard time getting around it. The equivalent would be a single user using so much more bandwidth than the typical user that they slow everyone else down, that is a "bandwidth hog".
"The end result is what you should worry about, not the way they get there."
Really? Let's say that you live in a peaceful neighborhood, that has recently turned into a very bad place, with rampant crime and drugs. The government decides to do something about it by leveling the entire neighborhood, just condemning everything and tearing everything down, leaving the residents nowhere to go with no compensation. End result no more crime in that neighborhood, but they got there by destroying the entire neighborhood.
In that little hypothetical (where you are one of the residents) everything is just fine, because according to you the end justifies the means. Or would you worry about the means in that case?
"There is also considerable proof (hundred plus years) the the public is more than willing to pay for a quality news product."
On this point I agree with you. People are willing to pay for the things they value. Then wouldn't a decreasing number of subscribers mean that fewer people are seeing the quality in a particular newspaper or see equal or better quality news elsewhere? And shouldn't newspapers try and focus on making people see the quality in their news product that we both agree people are willing to pay for instead of just adding a price tag?
You do make a good point about how likely "sticky" and non-"sticky" eyeballs are when it comes to paying attention to an ad, but...
"Advertisers pay for people's attention"
You're right they do. My guess is that if I bought something from an advertiser they would not know and would not care whether I was subscribing to a particular newspaper or just picked it up for free, because from their point of view the ad still worked.
"not just to see their ad in the garbage or dropped on the subway floor."
Do you subscribe to the newspaper just for the ads? I always assumed people subscribed to newspapers because of the quality of the news stories they had.
"Remember, someone who pays even a token amount is more likely to actually want to read the paper."
Don't people have to be willing to pay even that token amount? And wouldn't that willingness come in the form of wanting to read the articles in that paper? Or would you force people to pay so that they magically wanted to read the paper?
Seems to me that it all comes back to making people want to read the newspaper instead of just making them pay for it.
I think you are missing something. One of the basic arguments for a paywall made by people like Tim Luckhurst is often phrased along the lines of "getting people to pay for news is the only way for newspapers to survive." Even if they do not say it in those exact words, their insistence on the urgency of a paywall is being interpreted that way. But you said in your post "that "free" newspapers have to dramatically increase their distribution to see any increase in ad rates." That alone would make their claim that a paywall is the only way to survive false.
"If you moved to a "free" system, their eyeballs would lose value, and thus ad rates would drop."
How would those "eyeballs" lose value? If I see their ad and buy their product/service, does the advertiser really care if I'm a devoted subscriber or a casual reader?
You're stretching on this one. You are right that having such "assured sales" would help provide a target for advertisers, but Mike's point is not about that. It is about the money that comes directly from the subscription fees and newsstand purchases. Even if a large number of subscriptions draws in a lot of advertisers, the money drawn in directly from the subscription fees is highly unlikely to cover basic operating costs.
Think of it this way, can newspapers survive on only money from subscriptions and newsstand purchases? What about if they received absolutely no money from advertisers at all? If a newspaper can show consistently high readership even with falling subscriptions, are those not "eyeballs" for advertisers to try and monetize?
"Content is scarce. You are falling for the fallacy that because it can be copied, it isn't scarce. It's scarce as heck. It's only not scarce because people are stealing it (as Trent Reznor would call it)."
So, even though infinite copies of the movie can be made, and I can watch one of those copies on virtually any video player out there, the movie is scarce? Even though the supply of digital copies of the movie is near infinite, the supply is limited? I'm afraid I don't follow your logic.
The movie itself is not scarce, the talent of filmmakers such as Rhett Reese is scarce. I still go see movies in theaters, buy the movies I like on DVD so I can watch them later, and I have yet to download any movie via legal or illegal means. And I can clearly see where the scarcity lies. If you want to convince me otherwise, use rational and well thought out arguments to show how infinite supply equals scarcity (which is what you appear to be claiming).
"Would it surprise you to learn that I am am a musician that has recorded and toured?"
"So... holster your weapon and let us know what a song is worth to YOU and what YOU think the right business model is."
One of the problems that most of us have isn't with the $1 price tag for a song. Let's say I buy one of your songs from iTunes. How much of that $1 would you see directly? One penny? Two? Maybe half a penny? Please enlighten us to how much of that $1 you get directly.
If I did buy one of your songs, I would want most of that $1 to go to you instead of an organization that then turns around and sues everyone who dares enjoy music.
And even with a drop in recorded music revenue. The industry is still growing. So wouldn't that also show that the music industry isn't in as such bad shape as so many want to portray? Just that there is a shift in where people choose to spend their money?
I think you should click through to look at the actual numbers used to create that chart. Total live music revenue went from £531 million in 2004 to £904 million in 2008. Where as PRS numbers show a rise from £421 million in 2004 to £535 million in 2008. That's a 70% gain in total live music revenue over 4 years versus a 27% gain in PRS revenue over 4 years. Now without any numbers to the contrary, perhaps we should examine how you define 'marginal' and 'big' gains.
"The RIAA has lost an incredible amount of profit thanks to piracy and the internet. If these megastars start showing soon-to-be-megastars that they can make more money without the RIAA then where will the music end up?
I'll tell you. Six feet under. Thanks alot, piracy, the internet and Mariah Carey. Thanks for nothing."
The members of the RIAA have had years to adapt to the changing market place. Instead of experimenting with new business models they have been pursuing strategies that just serve to piss off their customers. And even without the RIAA, music will still be made and still find it's way to fans as it has for thousands of years. For now, let's just let the RIAA learn one of the basic laws of nature: adapt or die.