In addition to all of the above rebuttals, there is no "smokescreen" for his LDS "involvement". He is completely open about being an active member of the LDS Church. How you feel about that is up to you, but don't make it sound like he's trying to hide it.
I wonder what would happen if you put up a site called "democracyandpuppiestorrent.com"... would they have the cojones to go after puppies and democracy?
The naysayers do want to "fix things", it's just that we don't agree with you as to what is broken. Stealing is the real issue, the rest is all sucking up to thieves.
What he means is that the advertiser is the customer, and the readers are the product that is sold to the advertisers. The free content is the means of production for creating the product - readers.
You must be new here. :-) OSX is an infinite resource because it can be copied infinitely with essentially zero marginal cost. Apple makes it artificially scarce via copyright and EULAs, and maybe other techniques too.
Top 0.1%, so 1 in 1000 people is at least 8 feet tall? I'm not even sure there anybody currently alive who is that tall; I think your number is way off.
True, but if there's a used game market, people might be willing to pay a few quid more for that new game because they know they can sell it back later on. Mike claims there are studies showing a healthy secondary market boosts sales in the primary market. I haven't read them, but it does make sense.
You cell phones are no longer necessary. Because someone invented the conversation.
That doesn't really make sense, because you're talking and listening with a cell phone, just like you would with someone in the same room. Cell phones don't replace talking, just like Wikipedia doesn't replace reading. Cell phones replace landlines, so imagine if that went the other way.
There's this great new invention called the home phone. Instead of a phone that you take with you everywhere you go, you only use the phone when you're at home (or you can borrow someone else's phone when you're at their house).
There will be phones that you can use in public places if you pay for it, instead of using the cell phone you've already paid for. Also, the home phone doesn't burden you with features like contact lists, call history, calendars, cameras, email, and text messages.
They're more reliable too. You can get one with a cord so that not only is it almost impossible to lose, but it doesn't need batteries or an electrical outlet!
Are there some good things in that list? Yes! Are people ditching their cell phones to get landline phones? Quite the opposite. Cell phones took off because they are in almost every way superior to the technology that came before.
The story is funny, but in the end, The Encyclopedia Britannica home edition was an improvement over what was there before.
Kind of the point of the article, isn't it? New things keep coming out that are better than the old things.
Wikipedia? A great advancement perhaps, but history written by group memory and cited examples isn't always correct either.
Just like Encyclopedia Britannica.
Heck, written a few years ago, you wouldn't have mentioned twitter, but you would have mentioned myspace. Transient entertainment is not the nature of technological advances, I think.
Interesting thing is, the marketplace decides that, rather than you. :-) Technological advances encompass everything from Twitter to the Large Hadron Collider. If they're not valued in some way as better than what came before, they fall by the wayside.
I also have to say this: This article is one of those 30,000 foot view things
What were you expecting, an in-depth analysis of Wikipedia? That wouldn't be a better article, just a different one, and maybe less interesting. There's nothing wrong with taking a wide view now and then, and looking closely at details at other times, especially when people can broaden or narrow the focus in the comments.
What I anticipate is that as millions of musicians begin offering all of the above, none of the offerings will stay scarce. Every artist will have some variation of the above and the market will be flooded with every possible combination of access/containers/community/merchandise/relationships/unique goods/etc.
"Scarce" has a different meaning in economics. It doesn't mean rare, it means there are only so many of them. So even if there are 50 million of these things, that's still a finite supply, and it costs money/time/raw materials to make more. That makes them scarce. As compared to an MP3 file for example: we can have however many of those we want for essentially zero cost. It is not scarce, it is abundant.
Firstly, trying to make a convincing argument about economics based on aphorisms is... well, not convincing.
TANSTAAFL (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch)
You get what you pay for
These sayings are based on scarcities. Some things are scarce and you have to pay for them. Some things are abundant and you can get them for free. Some things are extremely important and valuable, but relatively abundant and very very low priced (tap water).
If a deal seems too good to be true, it usually is
Caveat Emptor (buyer beware)
What do these have to do with value vs. price?
Selling/Buying a pig in a poke
Never heard of that one.
All of these commonplace sayings point to a distinct link between price and value, usually as price being the best indicator of little or no value for the goods being offered.
Given a particular finite level of supply, yes price will go up based on demand (how much buyers value the good). But if supply is infinite, price will be zero no matter how high demand is. So in that case value and price are disconnected.
"Hang-ups," as if we're just too uptight or something, and all we need to do is drop some acid and mellow out at Berkeley, and stop being so SQUARE, man, worrying about those bills.
He didn't say don't worry about the bills, he said don't concentrate on the fact that the price of music files is trending toward zero.
"Exploring" sounds a lot like, "Hey, maybe this will work! Maybe it won't!"
If you have several options, and one of them (the old way of doing it) could be described as "this will not work for very much longer" and the rest are "maybe this will work and maybe not", would it not be a good idea to start looking into the alternatives?
If you would like to have people get interested in your ideas, telling them that their concerns are a hangup, to be dismissed, is not the approach that will win you tons of converts.
Firstly, he's not just telling them they should be dismissed, he's explaining why and showing what to do instead. Secondly, what do you think he should do to win converts? He's pointing out a major issue that is keeping some artists from updating their business models. How can he show them how to improve their prospects without pointing out the problem?
You can't just lump copyrights and trademarks together, they're completely different. If you're going to conflate two of those three, you should say patent/copyright. Trademark is separate. Yes, Google has sued over trademarks, anti-trust matters, and fraud, but I couldn't find any evidence of them filing suit about either patents or copyrights.
RSS
Twitter
Re: (as nasch)
The lesson here for everyone is: Don't wait until you find out you've been infringed before you register your copyrights. Do it asap.
If you plan on being a d!ck about it later (i.e. suing for more than actual damages + legal costs).
Re: (as nasch)
By developing and promoting other arguments, rather than the source of his stance, he's arguing in bad faith. It's an unattractive behavior.
You seem to know a lot about what is going on inside OSC's head.
Re: (as nasch)
In addition to all of the above rebuttals, there is no "smokescreen" for his LDS "involvement". He is completely open about being an active member of the LDS Church. How you feel about that is up to you, but don't make it sound like he's trying to hide it.
Re: (as nasch)
I wonder what would happen if you put up a site called "democracyandpuppiestorrent.com"... would they have the cojones to go after puppies and democracy?
Re: Uh, really? (as nasch)
Good rant, but I would have liked it better if you had worked in the term "vomitous mass".
Re: Re: Pah (as nasch)
Don't forget the part about speaking only for himself.
Re: Re: Mike mike... (as nasch)
The naysayers do want to "fix things", it's just that we don't agree with you as to what is broken. Stealing is the real issue, the rest is all sucking up to thieves.
And how do you propose to fix that?
*not holding breath*
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stuff I don't want. (as nasch)
How do you fix things? Stop pandering to thieves. Stop looking at piracy and going "good kids!".
So your solution to the record labels' problems is to... keep doing what they've been doing?
Re: Re: "Free content"? (as nasch)
What he means is that the advertiser is the customer, and the readers are the product that is sold to the advertisers. The free content is the means of production for creating the product - readers.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as nasch)
So even just reading it can cause them to make more money.
Which is not the same as me paying them money.
Fail!
Yes, but the fail was yours.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Master copy vs. individual copies (as nasch)
You must be new here. :-) OSX is an infinite resource because it can be copied infinitely with essentially zero marginal cost. Apple makes it artificially scarce via copyright and EULAs, and maybe other techniques too.
Re: (as nasch)
Top 0.1%, so 1 in 1000 people is at least 8 feet tall? I'm not even sure there anybody currently alive who is that tall; I think your number is way off.
Re: (as nasch)
True, but if there's a used game market, people might be willing to pay a few quid more for that new game because they know they can sell it back later on. Mike claims there are studies showing a healthy secondary market boosts sales in the primary market. I haven't read them, but it does make sense.
Re: try this one (as nasch)
I can see the article's encyclopedia example.
But, try this one.
You cell phones are no longer necessary. Because someone invented the conversation.
That doesn't really make sense, because you're talking and listening with a cell phone, just like you would with someone in the same room. Cell phones don't replace talking, just like Wikipedia doesn't replace reading. Cell phones replace landlines, so imagine if that went the other way.
There's this great new invention called the home phone. Instead of a phone that you take with you everywhere you go, you only use the phone when you're at home (or you can borrow someone else's phone when you're at their house).
There will be phones that you can use in public places if you pay for it, instead of using the cell phone you've already paid for. Also, the home phone doesn't burden you with features like contact lists, call history, calendars, cameras, email, and text messages.
They're more reliable too. You can get one with a cord so that not only is it almost impossible to lose, but it doesn't need batteries or an electrical outlet!
Are there some good things in that list? Yes! Are people ditching their cell phones to get landline phones? Quite the opposite. Cell phones took off because they are in almost every way superior to the technology that came before.
Re: (as nasch)
The story is funny, but in the end, The Encyclopedia Britannica home edition was an improvement over what was there before.
Kind of the point of the article, isn't it? New things keep coming out that are better than the old things.
Wikipedia? A great advancement perhaps, but history written by group memory and cited examples isn't always correct either.
Just like Encyclopedia Britannica.
Heck, written a few years ago, you wouldn't have mentioned twitter, but you would have mentioned myspace. Transient entertainment is not the nature of technological advances, I think.
Interesting thing is, the marketplace decides that, rather than you. :-) Technological advances encompass everything from Twitter to the Large Hadron Collider. If they're not valued in some way as better than what came before, they fall by the wayside.
I also have to say this: This article is one of those 30,000 foot view things
What were you expecting, an in-depth analysis of Wikipedia? That wouldn't be a better article, just a different one, and maybe less interesting. There's nothing wrong with taking a wide view now and then, and looking closely at details at other times, especially when people can broaden or narrow the focus in the comments.
Re: They won't continue to be scarce (as nasch)
What I anticipate is that as millions of musicians begin offering all of the above, none of the offerings will stay scarce. Every artist will have some variation of the above and the market will be flooded with every possible combination of access/containers/community/merchandise/relationships/unique goods/etc.
"Scarce" has a different meaning in economics. It doesn't mean rare, it means there are only so many of them. So even if there are 50 million of these things, that's still a finite supply, and it costs money/time/raw materials to make more. That makes them scarce. As compared to an MP3 file for example: we can have however many of those we want for essentially zero cost. It is not scarce, it is abundant.
Re: Re: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued (as nasch)
Firstly, trying to make a convincing argument about economics based on aphorisms is... well, not convincing.
TANSTAAFL (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch)
You get what you pay for
These sayings are based on scarcities. Some things are scarce and you have to pay for them. Some things are abundant and you can get them for free. Some things are extremely important and valuable, but relatively abundant and very very low priced (tap water).
If a deal seems too good to be true, it usually is
Caveat Emptor (buyer beware)
What do these have to do with value vs. price?
Selling/Buying a pig in a poke
Never heard of that one.
All of these commonplace sayings point to a distinct link between price and value, usually as price being the best indicator of little or no value for the goods being offered.
Given a particular finite level of supply, yes price will go up based on demand (how much buyers value the good). But if supply is infinite, price will be zero no matter how high demand is. So in that case value and price are disconnected.
Re: You kwow what? you're right. (as nasch)
In America value IS yes, infact measured by money.
How much do you pay for your air? If nothing, why do you not value it?
Re: Re: Re: (as nasch)
"Hang-ups," as if we're just too uptight or something, and all we need to do is drop some acid and mellow out at Berkeley, and stop being so SQUARE, man, worrying about those bills.
He didn't say don't worry about the bills, he said don't concentrate on the fact that the price of music files is trending toward zero.
"Exploring" sounds a lot like, "Hey, maybe this will work! Maybe it won't!"
If you have several options, and one of them (the old way of doing it) could be described as "this will not work for very much longer" and the rest are "maybe this will work and maybe not", would it not be a good idea to start looking into the alternatives?
If you would like to have people get interested in your ideas, telling them that their concerns are a hangup, to be dismissed, is not the approach that will win you tons of converts.
Firstly, he's not just telling them they should be dismissed, he's explaining why and showing what to do instead. Secondly, what do you think he should do to win converts? He's pointing out a major issue that is keeping some artists from updating their business models. How can he show them how to improve their prospects without pointing out the problem?
Re: Re: Re: Google sues for IP a lot... (as nasch)
You can't just lump copyrights and trademarks together, they're completely different. If you're going to conflate two of those three, you should say patent/copyright. Trademark is separate. Yes, Google has sued over trademarks, anti-trust matters, and fraud, but I couldn't find any evidence of them filing suit about either patents or copyrights.