Re: Too many thieves and pirates break ANY business model.
OK, the magic wand has been waved and all piracy has just disappeared (an impossible goal, but since you're too dumb to address the actual opinions of the people you attack here, bear with me).
Guess what? The recording industry is still losing a lot of money compared to 30 years ago. Why? Because of unbundling (people can now legally obtain the 2 tracks they want for $2 instead of being forced to pay $20 for an album of filler). Because of competition from other media (gaming, internet and movies take much of the youth culture that used to be the sole domain of music). Because quality has stagnated and people are turning to sources outside of the major record labels you fight so blindly to defend. Because you've treated your own artists so poorly that they'd rather not deal with the record labels any more.
If only you'd address the perfectly possible aim of reducing these problems instead of the impossible task of eliminating all piracy. Bonus: piracy will still go down and you won't have been attacking your own customers in order to do so!
Looootttsss of previous threads over the years debunking this idiotic argument that's a complete misrepresentation of anything that anyone here has ever said, and an obvious attempt to deflect away from the fact that the new model will simply not work long term in today's market..
a.k.a. a writer. She's saying that she writes for a living, but can't monetise one area of her writing due to copyright.
It's amazing that your zealous defence of the broken copyright system involves attacking people you claim to be protecting. You're actually attacking writers (and - assuming you're the same AC as other similar threads - games developers, musicians and filmmakers among others) who disagree with your obsession with infinite copyright. You're attacking content creators because they don't agree with the way that copyright has been twisted beyond recognition to support the income of those who won't adapt.
Incredible, but at least nobody's going to confuse you with someone with intellectual honesty and a fact-based argument.
So, you have nothing? You're not honest enough to answer any of my points, you just have to act like a child and ignore them because I called you a moron (even though I did so in response to your lies about me)? What a surprise.
Why are you people always so dishonest and unwilling to debate reality?
By saving them at least $25 and a lot of hassle so that they had a workable phone? He does. Or, are you saying that he can only be a friend if he doesn't charge them anything for the time and effort he's spending on free work for which many professionals would charge $50+/hour labour?
It's pretty pathetic really, as the studios seem determined to follow every mistake the record labels did rather than learn from what went before.
DRM on music was a disaster. It did nothing to stop piracy, and fragmented the market giving Apple a monopoly on digital music distribution while those left over had to deal with the horrendously incompatible Microsoft DRM. It created a huge number of issues for consumers, putting many of them off even trying digital purchases, and destroyed consumer confidence when servers started to shut off. It's only when they dropped the demand for DRM and allowed universally compatible MP3s to be sold that sales took off, and true competitors like Amazon began to challenge Apple's dominance.
Here, the same thing's happening with movies. Restricted files, compatibility issues, lack of device support, artificial monopolies, competing DRM systems - and no appreciable reduction in piracy. It's about time they follow the example of the music industry and dropped this mess, before they lose even more sales from the simple fact that they refuse to offer what consumers are demanding.
Hopefully one day the studios will realise that DRM is a losing game and offer DRM-free content as the record labels were forced to a few years ago (with no direct increase of piracy or loss of sales as a result).
Whenever that day is, that's the first time I will even consider buying a digitally distributed movie from any non-independent source.
It's funny how you're so obsessed with commenting on this site, yet you've somehow missed that this is exactly the claim that most articles here completely disprove. Why, it's almost as if you're dishonest and never bother to read anything!
Either way, simple reality proves you wrong. Apart from all the physical example of why that's a lie (bottled water sells very well despite every home having it literally on tap), there's a wealth of history that shows you're a liar. iTunes and Amazon are very successful at selling music despite the existence of both piracy and free radio. Books sell despite libraries, eBooks sell despite piracy. We've already had one of the top 10 internationally grossing movies of all time this year alone despite free alternatives. Linux hasn't shut down paid OSes, OpenOffice hasn't shut down MS Office, people still pay for phones and texts despite the existence of Skype and WhatsApp.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a whiney baby + @ "Oh, you didnít just say that."
No, it's been demonstrated hundreds of time that people like you will make claims like this without a shred of evidence, and lie about the people they're talking to. For example, I can cite several articles here this week alone that discuss how artists can make money, and a great many over the year discussing artists who have done exactly that - so your claim is a demonstrable lie. You are yet to cite a single fact that supports any of your points. I suspect it's because there are no facts, your tiny mind is simply incapable of accepting that people who criticise copyright aren't necessarily themselves involved in infringing it. Nuance and reality - two things you people can never grasp.
Re: Re: Re: What a melange! Think hit EVERY one of your wacky notions!
"Disney may have "stolen" from fairy tales (no one complained)"
No, because it all happened before Disney pushed the twisted version of copyright you so slavishly follow and worship. In Disney's time, he was able to take freely from works by dead authors. Those authors, in turn, took from centuries of traditional stories by dead authors. Nobody complained because there was literally no problem, morally or legally, in doing so. It's only now that current generations are blocked from taking from Disney's stories now that he's dead. People are complaining because they're blocked from doing perfectly acceptable things using freedoms their predecessors enjoyed without question.
"Of course Disney is bad example for later years, but was absolutely true up to 28 years from creation date."
So why do you support the extension well beyond that 28 years that's now in place? If that 28 year limit was still in place, half the issue discussed here wouldn't exit. But you're not honest enough to admit that, are you?
Of course it's patent trolling (assuming the patent as granted is not 100% valid and correct or has obvious prior art - that has yet to be seen). But, Mike hasn't denied that it is. AJ and his ilk are just busy creaming themselves because he didn't write that specific phrase. They're so used to lying about the points he's made about Dotcom in previous articles, they've deluded themselves into thinking he supports everything he does.
You know, if you guys added clarity and sanity to your comments, you might not look like idiots and people might even agree with you.
You can always tell when the article is essentially correct. Half the trolls try to deflect from the article, while others either attack the author or act like they just ate the strange looking mushroom they found in the back of the fridge.
Re: Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
I dunno... Maybe they're just paying the dancing monkey so that they can laugh at him along with the rest of us. I hope it is that, I'd hate to think I've been laughing at an actual mental patient all this time.
Of course he's a patent troll (or acting like one in this case at least). Nothing in the article denies that.
"Is that it?"
Yes, apparently Mike has to use very specific language in his articles, else morons will come and attack him. Do you have a problem with any of the points in the article, or are you just the latest in a long line of people to whine whenever Mike doesn't write what you want him to like? You certainly seem to be using the same tactics as the other idiots rather than address anything actually said. "Not a regular commenter" my ass.
I agree. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the exclusivity was a condition of the licences being granted in the first place (i.e. perhaps the licence was only granted to books exclusively published by Amazon). We can only guess as to the behind the scenes wrangling that was needed to even get this far.
However, as I've said elsewhere here, the author ultimately has the choice as to whether to accept this deal, upload for free anywhere or to publish a version with the copyrighted references removed, with the many other methods available. While there's still a choice, I don't see why this is too much of a problem. If an author doesn't like the deal, they don't have to take it - they just won't be able to legally monetise the work they based on copyrighted material while it still references that material.
"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.