where has Amanda said that she does not care about copyright and is surrendering her?
Again, you're missing what I'm saying.
What the argument for the past 30 years has been about is more and more copyright enforcement. Yet, Amanda is finding methods that don't even use copyright enforcement in any way, shape or form. So extended copyright, extended enforcement, extended censorship is not working to make artists money. This is proof from her actions that more copyright has not worked for her, nor has it worked for the RIAA that tries these techniques.
Until the trade industries actually employ better services that customers want instead of the empty fight on piracy, they will continue to lose money and waste time on a non-issue.
For the people that don't get it, I'm going to try to explain this in a somewhat different manner.
Amanda Palmer does not rely on copyright. Period. She relies on an intuitive sense of what works for her and what works for how she'll make money in the future. The Kickstarter is a tool to have people invest in her and her works and she is reestablishing a connection. But people are going to miss one thing.
Out of 30 years of copyright law, why have the major labels never (and I do mean never) done anything in regards to this transparency? Why do they continue in this cloak and dagger world where the only ones allowed to have copyright protection are the ones that have done nothing to deserve it?
Time and time again, we have to settle with the "copyright holders" screwing over artists because they can't think of a world where artists are in control of their money.
Yet when it's pointed out, who are the ones ridiculed? That's right... The artists themselves.
So here is the point for those that would miss it. Your copyright law is outdated.
Give us new technology and no more copyright. Leave it as a push for Progressing the Arts and Sciences instead of censorship. That's all anyone wants. Not the shoddy mercantilism you continue to espouse.
If the entire bill is a problem, then why should any compromise be acceptable?
Mike, small caveat. People have "compromised" on copyright for the last 30 years. We've hit the limit of copyright. We don't need copyright. We don't need acceptable censorship. We've needed the public to have a say in copyright.
Slavery soon turned to Jim Crow which has now lead to a massive incarceration of minorities based on indifference. Human beings persist in being property thanks to making them animals for under minimum wage and taking away all of their rights when they come out of prison.
Our prisons are overflowing with minor drug crimes. And what's even worse, we have allowed private prisons to profit from that labor.
So don't tell me that segregation doesn't exist. It was never eliminated. Thanks to Nixon and Reagan in particular and their "war on crime" it soon became a war on minorities that has had a devastating effect on the politics of the US in a severely negative fashion.
Since the punk, new wave revolution, and ESPECIALLY since the internet, a great many artists, film makers and musicians earn money directly from copyright.
Then why are so many artists revolting against the old copyright regime?
People make and sell their own music.
But they're not going to the labels and keeping their own copyrights. So saying that enforcement equates to they're making money on copyright is disingenuous and obnoxious at best.
It's a comfortable lie that you're only punishing lazy middlemen when you pirate, but many times you are punishing self releasing artists, indie film makers, and one man band record companies.
. We've said for years the pirate sites are profiting from piracy.
And even as you say it, it has made no sense. The pirate sites don't make a lot of money. The people you represent do.
The people who consume the pirated content are of course looking for free content.
Again, nonsense. They click on the TV and they've paid for that content. People can look for free online in the form of Youtube streams. People can look for free in regards to new games that can be found for free. The concept of time shift from the Betamax ruling is not lost on anyone. Yet you ignore this important aspect to consider people thieves when they can find the alternatives at a time and a place that's convenient for them. Why must you continue to ignore actual facts for this moral belief in "But... But... Piracy" routines?
New' compared to radio and tv of course. No one was sharing music on the net 20 years ago. Pretty silly then to claim the phenom is 20 years old. In terms of content delivery, the law and copyright, it's NEW.
Again, this is short sighted and wrong. People are using new mediums of delivery at their convenience. Even if you think it's dead, time shifting is not gone. People can hear songs on the radio or their mp3 player. They can watch Cable TV or use the internet for news. They can play games on PC or find old games. This does not equate to lost money.
It's new monetary avenues. Why aren't you exploring what you can do with these new avenues instead of wasting time fighting things you can't resolve?
The US has lost Thomas Drake, William Binney, and a number of whistleblowers that spoke up as well as instill a $1.7 billion dollar massive spy ring in terms of the NSA Utah project. Honestly, the chances of Michael Daniel coming into this situation and wanting to change the system are very few. The "establishment" has spoken. The ones that speak up and don't go for the scare mongering are going to be the ones that are thrown out. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually Howard Schmidt, like Robert Gates, doesn't start speaking up about how the government is truly corrupted in this regard.
I truly hope I'm wrong, but the signs for Michael Daniel being as moderate as Howard are very slim IMO.
That's asking a lot. You're going to have officers able to testify and willing to lie and do more ground research for a public defender that is already overworked?
This comment was in response to allegations that Siri would not return information on searches for Abortion clinics when asked. At the time Apple blamed this on the questions being asked and said it was just the way that Siri pulled the information from the source engine (again WolframAlpha). This created quite a stir as it was viewed as a source of moral censorship.
Even better is that the story goes on to display how Steve Jobs wanted to set up ebook pricing. Of course, DRM is still a bad idea, but allowing the publishers to hang their own noose worked for him quite well.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
That's explained by statutory damages in the video.
Re: Re:
You're thinking about the studios they represent.
The MPAA merely lobbies for the studios in Congress and represents them as the hated face to the public.
Just sayin...
For that kind of money, can we get an audit and transparency as well?
Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
where has Amanda said that she does not care about copyright and is surrendering her?
Again, you're missing what I'm saying.
What the argument for the past 30 years has been about is more and more copyright enforcement. Yet, Amanda is finding methods that don't even use copyright enforcement in any way, shape or form. So extended copyright, extended enforcement, extended censorship is not working to make artists money. This is proof from her actions that more copyright has not worked for her, nor has it worked for the RIAA that tries these techniques.
Until the trade industries actually employ better services that customers want instead of the empty fight on piracy, they will continue to lose money and waste time on a non-issue.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
It sure is. That's why my iPod cost the industry $8 billion dollars.
Re: Re: Re:
I will never support an industry that gave us the 4Kids version of One Piece.
Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
Thank you for showing how to miss the point.
Re: Re: The point that is summarily missed...
Thank you for showing how to miss the point.
The point that is summarily missed...
For the people that don't get it, I'm going to try to explain this in a somewhat different manner.
Amanda Palmer does not rely on copyright. Period. She relies on an intuitive sense of what works for her and what works for how she'll make money in the future. The Kickstarter is a tool to have people invest in her and her works and she is reestablishing a connection. But people are going to miss one thing.
Out of 30 years of copyright law, why have the major labels never (and I do mean never) done anything in regards to this transparency? Why do they continue in this cloak and dagger world where the only ones allowed to have copyright protection are the ones that have done nothing to deserve it?
Time and time again, we have to settle with the "copyright holders" screwing over artists because they can't think of a world where artists are in control of their money.
Yet when it's pointed out, who are the ones ridiculed? That's right... The artists themselves.
Their fans are locked up.
Their business partners are charged criminally with no purpose but to destroy their business.
In essence, the criminals are the ones choosing where innovation takes place.
So here is the point for those that would miss it. Your copyright law is outdated.
Give us new technology and no more copyright. Leave it as a push for Progressing the Arts and Sciences instead of censorship. That's all anyone wants. Not the shoddy mercantilism you continue to espouse.
Re: Re:
If the entire bill is a problem, then why should any compromise be acceptable?
Mike, small caveat. People have "compromised" on copyright for the last 30 years. We've hit the limit of copyright. We don't need copyright. We don't need acceptable censorship. We've needed the public to have a say in copyright.
Re:
It's called Pedo's Law.
Re:
Bwuh? You think anyone watching Congress give power to a trade industry over the needs of the world was valid?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Slavery soon turned to Jim Crow which has now lead to a massive incarceration of minorities based on indifference. Human beings persist in being property thanks to making them animals for under minimum wage and taking away all of their rights when they come out of prison.
Our prisons are overflowing with minor drug crimes. And what's even worse, we have allowed private prisons to profit from that labor.
So don't tell me that segregation doesn't exist. It was never eliminated. Thanks to Nixon and Reagan in particular and their "war on crime" it soon became a war on minorities that has had a devastating effect on the politics of the US in a severely negative fashion.
Re: Myths
Since the punk, new wave revolution, and ESPECIALLY since the internet, a great many artists, film makers and musicians earn money directly from copyright.
Then why are so many artists revolting against the old copyright regime?
People make and sell their own music.
But they're not going to the labels and keeping their own copyrights. So saying that enforcement equates to they're making money on copyright is disingenuous and obnoxious at best.
It's a comfortable lie that you're only punishing lazy middlemen when you pirate, but many times you are punishing self releasing artists, indie film makers, and one man band record companies.
Re: Re: Re:
. We've said for years the pirate sites are profiting from piracy.
And even as you say it, it has made no sense. The pirate sites don't make a lot of money. The people you represent do.
The people who consume the pirated content are of course looking for free content.
Again, nonsense. They click on the TV and they've paid for that content. People can look for free online in the form of Youtube streams. People can look for free in regards to new games that can be found for free. The concept of time shift from the Betamax ruling is not lost on anyone. Yet you ignore this important aspect to consider people thieves when they can find the alternatives at a time and a place that's convenient for them. Why must you continue to ignore actual facts for this moral belief in "But... But... Piracy" routines?
New' compared to radio and tv of course. No one was sharing music on the net 20 years ago. Pretty silly then to claim the phenom is 20 years old. In terms of content delivery, the law and copyright, it's NEW.
Again, this is short sighted and wrong. People are using new mediums of delivery at their convenience. Even if you think it's dead, time shifting is not gone. People can hear songs on the radio or their mp3 player. They can watch Cable TV or use the internet for news. They can play games on PC or find old games. This does not equate to lost money.
It's new monetary avenues. Why aren't you exploring what you can do with these new avenues instead of wasting time fighting things you can't resolve?
Not good
The US has lost Thomas Drake, William Binney, and a number of whistleblowers that spoke up as well as instill a $1.7 billion dollar massive spy ring in terms of the NSA Utah project. Honestly, the chances of Michael Daniel coming into this situation and wanting to change the system are very few. The "establishment" has spoken. The ones that speak up and don't go for the scare mongering are going to be the ones that are thrown out. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually Howard Schmidt, like Robert Gates, doesn't start speaking up about how the government is truly corrupted in this regard.
I truly hope I'm wrong, but the signs for Michael Daniel being as moderate as Howard are very slim IMO.
Re: Re: Re:
He just made Avengers...
I think he's pretty much set for right now.
Re: Re: exactly = where are the countersuits?
That's asking a lot. You're going to have officers able to testify and willing to lie and do more ground research for a public defender that is already overworked?
A loss
I have to wonder what is the point of Facebook going public in the first place? What do they actually get for being public?
Business has picked up
Well this story just got a lot better:
This comment was in response to allegations that Siri would not return information on searches for Abortion clinics when asked. At the time Apple blamed this on the questions being asked and said it was just the way that Siri pulled the information from the source engine (again WolframAlpha). This created quite a stir as it was viewed as a source of moral censorship.
Even better is that the story goes on to display how Steve Jobs wanted to set up ebook pricing. Of course, DRM is still a bad idea, but allowing the publishers to hang their own noose worked for him quite well.