Unfortunately there's nothing Mike could say to satisfy the "state your position" trolls, because they're aren't here seeking his position or truth or honest discussion.
Their goal is simply to discredit Mike and this website so it will not be as influential, and make it an unpleasant place to visit.
"All that they really did was use the free players to pump up their existing universe."
Exactly. Dedicated users will pay, but you need a large user base to make it appealing to dedicated users.
If the free version is satisfactory to most people then the free version is the actual product. This is a perfectly valid way to offer something for free, and is a proven model used all over the internet, from Techdirt to Vimeo to Dropbox to games.
I can't think of anything more utterly petty than this response. Your whole life is wrapped up attacking some guy that runs a blog. I'm glad it entertains you so much. I will avoid reading anything you contribute in the future.
So what if he doesn't take a stand. He doesn't have to and that's his perogative. He's going to do and say whatever he wants and you're left complaining about it.
If you don't think he's honest or trustworthy, why come to his website - constantly - to try and out him. What's in it for you? You've been on this blog for years. That's one very sad life. Why do you care so much?
Find something you love to put your energy toward, rather than something you hate.
The guy publishes something every day and you come here just to read it, but then contend he offers nothing?
If you actually believe he brings nothing useful to the table, then why are you eating it up? Why not find something more nutritious?
And as I saw earlier today, the only reason people demand feedback from Mike is so that they can make every effort later to use those words against him.
I just replied to three of your comments in a row, but you no debate me? All you seem to be interested in is discrediting the blog owner.
And I find it amusingly ironic that you dog Mike for making sweeping statements in an article about politicians and lobbyists making sweeping statements - people whose statements have far more influence than anything said here. But I guess you agree with those sweeping statements so it's fine.
And now I'm sorry I bothered to reply to you at all.
Um... it's been stated here many times that it would be better for artists to embrace infringers rather than litigate against them, and relaxing copyright law instead of creating harsher laws is more likely to make them more money.
Make a law that people can respect and they just might respect the laws. It's pretty hard to respect a copyright law that block my attempts to be creative in so many ways.
I agree that quantifying culture can be impossible. It's about a whole lot more than can be measured with dollar figures, which is the only way corporations and the government have to measure things.
And if the effectiveness of copyright can't be measured, then there's really no reason to have copyright.
I'm an artist, a techie, and the public - copyright is messed up from all three perspectives, but I tend to favor reforms that benefit the public the most.
That's different than a government edict. The government isn't publishing the material, merely accepting it as the standard. It wouldn't become public domain or controlled by the government.
At the same time, there's no reason the government couldn't purchase the copyright of privately held works and make it public domain as a way of setting standards.
In the future we will all buy our movie tickets before the movie is even made.
Instead of pitching a story to a studio executive, you'll just pitch it to the public.
Many will fail to properly execute their pitch, and people will be disappointed with the final films. They will not get their next project funded.
But a handful will impress and be able to deliver great films that will lead to more funding for future projects - these will be the filmmakers of the future.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What an arrogant twat.
(untitled comment)
The only time I see the world as overly violent is when I watch the news. Nothing but scare-mongering.
Re: Re:
Aw, jeez! Why did I look that up?
Re: Re: Re:
And yet you keep coming back for more.
Re: Mike's Position (my opinion of it anyway).
Unfortunately there's nothing Mike could say to satisfy the "state your position" trolls, because they're aren't here seeking his position or truth or honest discussion.
Their goal is simply to discredit Mike and this website so it will not be as influential, and make it an unpleasant place to visit.
Oh, and they're failing miserably.
(untitled comment)
Has that judge read Leviticus?
(untitled comment)
It's almost like they can't see the harm they are causing for fear of the harm that might be caused to them.
Re: It's funny
"All that they really did was use the free players to pump up their existing universe."
Exactly. Dedicated users will pay, but you need a large user base to make it appealing to dedicated users.
If the free version is satisfactory to most people then the free version is the actual product. This is a perfectly valid way to offer something for free, and is a proven model used all over the internet, from Techdirt to Vimeo to Dropbox to games.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can't think of anything more utterly petty than this response. Your whole life is wrapped up attacking some guy that runs a blog. I'm glad it entertains you so much. I will avoid reading anything you contribute in the future.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what if he doesn't take a stand. He doesn't have to and that's his perogative. He's going to do and say whatever he wants and you're left complaining about it.
If you don't think he's honest or trustworthy, why come to his website - constantly - to try and out him. What's in it for you? You've been on this blog for years. That's one very sad life. Why do you care so much?
Find something you love to put your energy toward, rather than something you hate.
Re: Re: Re:
The guy publishes something every day and you come here just to read it, but then contend he offers nothing?
If you actually believe he brings nothing useful to the table, then why are you eating it up? Why not find something more nutritious?
And as I saw earlier today, the only reason people demand feedback from Mike is so that they can make every effort later to use those words against him.
I just replied to three of your comments in a row, but you no debate me? All you seem to be interested in is discrediting the blog owner.
And I find it amusingly ironic that you dog Mike for making sweeping statements in an article about politicians and lobbyists making sweeping statements - people whose statements have far more influence than anything said here. But I guess you agree with those sweeping statements so it's fine.
And now I'm sorry I bothered to reply to you at all.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, my income is through publishing.
Re:
Um... it's been stated here many times that it would be better for artists to embrace infringers rather than litigate against them, and relaxing copyright law instead of creating harsher laws is more likely to make them more money.
Make a law that people can respect and they just might respect the laws. It's pretty hard to respect a copyright law that block my attempts to be creative in so many ways.
Re:
I agree that quantifying culture can be impossible. It's about a whole lot more than can be measured with dollar figures, which is the only way corporations and the government have to measure things.
And if the effectiveness of copyright can't be measured, then there's really no reason to have copyright.
Re:
I'm an artist, a techie, and the public - copyright is messed up from all three perspectives, but I tend to favor reforms that benefit the public the most.
Re: Re: Re:
Corporations love expensive games because they have enough money to play and the price tag keeps out the riff raff.
Re:
Neutral reports also don't come with campaign funds and private sector job offers.
Re:
That's different than a government edict. The government isn't publishing the material, merely accepting it as the standard. It wouldn't become public domain or controlled by the government.
At the same time, there's no reason the government couldn't purchase the copyright of privately held works and make it public domain as a way of setting standards.
(untitled comment)
In the future we will all buy our movie tickets before the movie is even made.
Instead of pitching a story to a studio executive, you'll just pitch it to the public.
Many will fail to properly execute their pitch, and people will be disappointed with the final films. They will not get their next project funded.
But a handful will impress and be able to deliver great films that will lead to more funding for future projects - these will be the filmmakers of the future.
Re:
Tell your wife you found a way to save $900 a year and take her on a nice vacation.