look. I'm serving with the Marine Corps. If I have a copy of a game bought, paid for, and sent to me I can't play it. The Internet isn't very reliable in the freaking desert.
I'm a very small percentage but I'm still screwed. what recourse do I have besides playing a pirate copy?
Taking down cell towers? Terrorism? Apple needs to reflect on the aftermath of 9/11. Almost instantly the cell networks became useless due to the high volume of calls. If the terrorists wanted to take down the cell towers, all they would need to do these days is pre-empt American Idol.
Viacom is the point man for the same war that has been going on in the music arena for more than half a decade. The television and movie companies are laboring under the assumption that if Viacom wins this suit that they'll finally be able to gain some ground on all of this digital piracy thing.
They think that somehow, they have found this problem earlier than the music industry did, and that if they take down YouTube, people will flock to their pitiful little offerings, and the war will be over. Make no mistake, Viacom believes that it can win this suit if it simply changes it argument enough to suit a sitting judge. Once they do, the storm will come. Their ultimate goal is to have the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA scrutinized to the point that the offerings from the RIAA and MPAA will be accepted by Congress. The only thing standing in their way are the hugely popular and legitimate companies and business models that have enough money to fight this sort of lawsuit.
If YouTube looses this it will all start to fall apart. Yes, there will fallout, and yes, there will rise from the ashes of YouTube any number of sites to take their place, but the rolling juggernaut will crush them one by one and leave new, tailored laws in their place. Then once the industry feels it's going fast enough, and is big enough, it will finally begin to change laws through its lobbyists to destroy entire protocols like BitTorrent. Within a decade, the Internet will look like the cable TV of today: Tied up in a wickerwork of regulations and FCC restrictions on use, with dwindling funds for local and amateur access.
A movie studio makes a movie in the hopes that people will pay to watch it. When people choose a method of not paying, (not going to the theater, not buying the DVD, piracy) They are simply voting that the business model (method of distribution, fees charged, etc.) does not suit them.
I would go do a deli every day for lunch, rather than make my own sandwich, if the prices were lower. There is no breakdown in the analogy there... The movie studios create a price based on the effort used to produce and distribute the movie. The deli creates a price based on the effort used to produce and distribute the sandwich.
If I make an exact copy of the deli's sandwich and give it away for free I'm not stealing their sandwich, I'm stealing their business. The only way for them to compete is to find out what people like about my sandwiches when compared to theirs, and try to duplicate that quality.
That is a cut and dry business model issue.
(I'll leave it up to the Pros to discuss how to compete with free, how to convince the public to change their ways and all of those other things that come with overhauling a failing business in the face of changing market conditions.)
While an affinity label seems like a great thing, eventually it will encounter the same problems that any label does: a limited amount of 'space' for new artists and a static listener base. The long tail becomes the same as it is today with 'manufactured' talent.
I'm not saying the idea won't work, but the devil is in the details. If a label can link exposure, consumer trust, ease of access and the ability for customers to become promoters, the best bands will bubble to the top, and the experience will be good for everyone. Let's all hope that ideas like this (and the addendum that Mike presented where labels help manage when needed) become the norm rather than the exception.
This may be a simple case of Safe Harbor -- unless it turns out that Zappos knoew about the website name DSW-shoes. I submit that if they are an affiliate, that Zappos certainly know that a website called DSW-shoes was taking part. I'm sure that you have to give your website name when you fill out an affiliate request form. Zappos should have rejected the affiliate claim, and never allowed them to become an affiliate. This time, I think, it's not a Safe Harbor case.
There could be no more clear an indicator that the Government and large corporations have created and artificial stop-gap to the free market and progress than such an establishment proposing that there needs to be a separate environment for the fostering of innovation.
It is a sad, sad place to which we have arrived.
Pardon the intrusion gents, but Mr. Syndor has risen my ire with this comment: Second, I am glad to see that you refuse to defend Lessig’s Walter-Duranty-like attempt to characterize Soviet communism as “bland.” Sadly, I note that you were willing to defend Lessig’s Jane-Fonda-like cheerleading for Vietnamese communism, in which Lessig tries to convince us that communist Vietnam provides more “effective freedom” and better “ideals” than those in the United States that Lessig expressly and incessantly denigrates.
This is a complete misrepresentation of Lessig's analysis. His thought as related to Vietnam simply indicates that:
1. a communist regime has less draconian copyright laws than our democracy;
2. those who are proponents of near-infinite copyright are exploiters who would rather rely on past success to fund future failure and litigation rather than allowing a single penny of value to be passed on to the people.
Now that sounds like communism to me.
Very true, Erik. Although I did wrap my DDT post to sarcasm (as a response to Mike's "challenge"), I am a proponent of its proper use because, in truth, it works. In proper application it prevented the deaths of countless people in Africa by helping to stop the spread of Malaria. Those who fail to recognize the unintended consequences of banning its use there are either misinformed or lying. Much in the same way that nuclear power has been derided by the U.S. public because of their lack of knowledge, so has the advantage of DDT.(7 out of 10 people I interviewed for research on nuclear power actually believed that nuclear waste was a green ooze stored in 50-gallon drums!)
Of course Lessig is a proponent of Creative Commons. In his world, CC would be used to grant "rights" to those, like me, who create for public consumption. The "real" copyrights would only be available to the Disneys, NBCs, and CBS's of the world who create for profit, and they would be free to take my CC works and use them as their own for eternity, without compensation to me. It's a wonderful dream for the Socialist community to push Creative Commons in the way that works for them.
I'm surprised that you don't recognize Lessig's comment on DDT as a thinly veiled comparison of the music industry as the murderers of wildlife. Lessig never squares the fact the DDT worked with the reason it failed. DDTs usefulness is detracted simply because the delivery method was flawed and little oversight was involved. Vis a vis, DRM and property rights are detracted because neither does there exist a stringent enough framework of law to allow proper implementation, nor does there exist a truly detrimental punishment for those who, outside of the lawful user base, continue to flaunt their disregard for society and its laws simply to fulfill their deep hunger to be recognized for their "contribution" to piracy and theft. /sarcasm
That aside, your insight is once again a pleasure to absorb, Mike. I'm glad to see that Tom is here too, at the very least it shows dedication; I'm eager to see how (if) this resolves.
This seems like a good choice for Microsoft. As noted earlier in the month, MS is trying to build up a hardware market, and this will help to solve that problem. Second, as noted in the article above, Danger has a service based revenue stream. It's clear that MS want to expand into that market as well. acquiring Danger will give Microsoft a focused insight on how that can work, then apply that to their advantage. Over all a good move on their part.