First - not trying to troll. I agree with your position and your overall point, but...
Second - This article is an example of a bad analogy argument. "Minds, like rivers, can be broad. The broader the river, the shallower it is. Therefore, the broader the mind, the shallower it is." Yes, it's entertaining, but you're ascribing a ridiculous scenario to the **AA, which a) isn't provable, and b) devoid of any rational basis, and c) is petty and seems like it's making more digs at the **AA than valid points.
Yes, I agree with the sentiment. But, the style in which this was argued is, IMHO, not up to the high quality of other criticisms and analysis of the **AA's policies and procedures.
"Thing is, almost none of these arguments are regularly used by those worried about PIPA and SOPA."
While not used a lot by those worried about PIPA and SOPA, the argument that "musicians are rich anyway" is one that is used often in mainstream discussions of copyright. For example, this was the argument behind the episode of South Park named "Christian Rock Hard" (Season 7, Episode 9). Yes, it's a straw man, and yes, I agree with your overall point, but don't dismiss the argument because you don't believe it's used much. that doesn't really address the logical flaw of Mr. Iglauer. Rather, directly address the issue - "Bruce Iglauer created a strawman, regardless of how widely that strawman is in use, that misses the point of SOPA and Protect IP. Those pieces of legislation go way to far to 'fix' something that isn't a legal problem, but a business one."
By claiming no one says "musicians are rich anyway," you lose the argument as soon as one person claims that. But if you say "you're not talking about protectIP, because no matter what the conclusion of that is, you're still wrong here, here, and here," you've argued the point correctly.
Again, I don't agree with the overall message, just the means in which you criticized Iglauer. You coulda done it better, dude.
Oh wow, I realize there's at least two other posts ripping apart individual points within your comment, but I'm going to look at the big picture. Basically, you're defending a clunky, disorganized, and dysfunctional system. To you, any criticism of it makes the critic 'full of himself' , even though the criticism is valid.
Yea, it's hard work making a good customer service for such a complicated service, but AT&T is a multi-billion dollar company. It might be work, but it's not impossible, and it's not asking too much for customers wanting the services they pay for.
Now that I've got that out of my system, Mike, a bit of advice. I've had horrible horrible stories with AT&T wireless and Verizon FIOS customer service (FIOS didn't install my tv service correctly, and I was left without service and lied to by reps for days), but I found the consumerist blog to help out a lot. http://consumerist.com/consumer/howto/be-a-customer-service-ninja-177811.php
I realize Carr is an economic commentator, but it seems to me that he's talking about the emotional impact of the Art itself. The statement "Recorded music is nothing but marketing material to drive awareness of an artist" is sad because it means that all material automatically 'sells out'. The artistry, because reduced to the level of commericalism, is corrupted, if economics says that art is just an ad.
So, when it's all advertisements, there's no intrinsic meaning to the work; it's not an end in itself (art for the sake of art, poetry for the sake of poetry, making music for the sake of making music).
While in economics, the idea that you somehow have to avoid selling out seems to be counterproductive, by claiming someone wrote a song because he/she only wanted to make music; it gives that music the reputation of being uncorrupted and pure, and gives it a musical street cred. If all music is purely advertising (which I do agree with, btw), then that purity of making something without any economic incentivies just goes away.
Again, Mike, I agree with you, but I can see where Carr is coming from: an emotional art perspective, not a pure economic one.
Okay, I don't see this move as pure extortion, but rather a service charge to convert a particular video for you.
Back when cassettes were around, all you had to do was hit record on a tape deck, and you could make your own copy. Likewise, when it comes to making mp3's out of CDs nowadays, all you have to do is hit 'import' and everything is done for you.
Because of it's ease of use to copy, you'd never pay anyone else to do this, because you could do it by yourself. But, when it comes to video encoding, the process gets a whole lot more cumbersome. Sure, programs like handbrake make it releatively easy, but you still need to know a lot more (what the video_ts folder is, what bit rate, frame rate, or container to use, and so on), so for many, it's a lot more practical to just pay extra to have this done for you.
As video encoding gets easier and easier for the average person to do, however, market forces will eventually make iTunes bundling impractical. Yea, the DMCA muddies the water alot, but the charge isn't extortion, it's the going market rate for ease of use.