Perhaps reading the arguments of the other side would be more effective rather than just spouting off drivel? You seem to have totally forgotten the argument which has been set out over and over again in this and similar discussions: namely, that this "disruption" is not likely to be effective for more than a short period of time, and its likely effect will be to merely cause P2P technology to become less vulnerable to such kinds of attacks.
The problem with your theory is that you are already bankrupted by lawyer's fees by the time you are able to file your first filing in Federal court.
OTOH, I see a shining future for all kinds of infringing material being disseminated while claiming to be licensed. (This was thought of, already, and made into a separate crime, if I am not mistaken.)
Yes, the report itself showcases information about the trading volume on Mt. Gox currently being around $276K per day.
In my opinion, however, just trading shouldn't really be considered "use". The report has no firm information on the volume of bitcoins actually used to buy real goods or services.
Waves, however, does seem to be a good example of a company whose (current) business model is doomed by the progress of technology. Once Waves' algorithms have been reverse engineered (and any patents have run out), their only distinguishing feature which will remain is their "brand recognition". I doubt they'll last very long once it gets to that point. And even if they are constantly improving their algorithms, the law of diminishing returns will eventually stop that because human hearing is not constantly improving (or at least, not at a significant rate).
> if you don't need Waves to create great music,
> why do they even exist?
The following information is based on a conversation I had once, a long time ago, with someone who worked at Waves. So I apologize ahead of time if it is not 100% correct.
When Waves' price point was set, Waves couldn't be run on consumer grade hardware. It needed to be run on custom-designed DSP boards which were part of the product --- one of the reasons for the "uber-price", back then.
Unfortunately for Waves, Moore's Law doesn't apply to human ears, so now many off-the-shelf computers are powerful enough to run Waves, and Waves' only distinguishing feature is the more advanced, internal algorithmic know-how. Because Waves' potential market is small, it seems that they've decided that lowering its price would not generate significantly more income for them.
If we compare Waves' situation to, for example, Paulo Coelho in a knee-jerk fashion, we would come to the conclusion that Waves' management "doesn't get it". However, it is not at all clear that they are stupid. My understanding is that all of the big recording studios pay for Waves without a second thought, so the lost income from them would have to be offset by hundreds of times more sales to indie musicians like Dan, who are more likely to decide not to pay even for a cheaper product (or at least, not until they start making significant money from their music).
Your post is confused. You make it seem like Waves has been injured ("and against Waves wishes" [sic]), when, in reality, you should be ranting about the "lost sale" to the producers of the "very, very good plug-ins that most people use". Unfortunately, you can't stir up enough moral panic about that because it's not clear from what he wrote that Dan didn't pay for one of those (and decide to use Waves instead).
So where is our indignation supposed to come from? You also emphasize that the difference in quality of the music Dan produces using Waves compared to the other plugins is not very significant, so you undercut the only other argument I can see is possible (which you didn't even attempt to make), which is to be indignant that Dan is "cheating" in the competition with other musicians.
So, while I found your post interesting, it was totally ineffective in generating the effect which I believe you desired. About the only thing which would have generated that kind of moral outrage is Dan thanking everyone for enabling him to earn hundreds of thousands of pounds, while, at the same time, saying that even though he's totally capable now of paying for Waves without thinking twice, he's still not going to do it (for whatever reason).
All this discussion, especially the paragraph which includes
We measure economic value in monetary value -- even when it doesn't involve money directly. And, yet, because of this, we often forget that non-monetary transactions have tremendous costs, price and value as well.
You could have purchased a few from Baen, they've never had DRM as far as I can see. Myself, this means that I'm actually going to send them email commending them on this decision, and I'll pick out the book which seems the most interesting and buy it, just to put my wallet where my ideology is.
Wow, yes, I hadn't thought of that. Is it similar to how they cannot extend the term of copyright as much as they want because the Constitution says it is for a "limited time"?
Laws which work mechanically are unlikely to be respected.
Even more bizarrely, given the wording of the US copyright act, it would seem that if one buys a painting in Europe, one still needs the permission of the rightsholder to bring it back home (import it) to the US.
It isn't a 'massive fail' unless it's tested in the courts and the author is found to be wrong.
It is a massive fail for society as a whole that people choose to waste their own time and the justice system's time (and possibly channel their own money to lawyers) for no good reason.
<snarkmode>
If this phenomenon becomes more widespread, authors everywhere will be going bankrupt paying lawyer's fees and court fees. Don't you even think of the authors?</snarkmode>
> As a musician, I believe most people would agree
> that copyrights should be protected.
No, a lot of us think that you're confusing the mechanism (copyright) with the goal (musicians getting paid). If you ask the _right_ questions, I think you'd see that most people would agree that "musicians should get paid" and they _wouldn't_ agree with current copyright law, if they actually understood its ramifications.
Whose endgame? Mike _repeatedly_ states that he hopes that all of these megacorps and their execs will "get it", and not write themselves into the corner of history where the dinosaurs found themselves.
The fact is that the subject matter of this blog is (partially at least) "how the megacorps DON'T get it". Your call for balance because "they are megacorps" is a falacious "argument from authority". Your call for balance because these megacorps, in the past, were a useful societal force which produced for us plenty of nice music is a falacious "argument from antiquity".
And the whole point of this post is to point out that Mike _isn't_ demonizing (as in, threatening them with violence, or calling them scum) people with points of view he disagrees with. For another example, in the post about Teller's lawsuit, where Mike disagrees with Teller's choice of action, the worst thing he says about it is that he is "disappointed" and that, even, only about the action itself (Mike doesn't attack Teller personally, for example).
In this light, your argument boils down to: "since Mike isn't a nice cheerleader for *all* points of view, he should expect to be excoriated" --- which makes no sense whatsoever, except possibly if you mean that _everyone_ who wants to publicly state an opinion on the net should expect _someone_ to abuse him, even if it is totally unjustified.
> ... without a organized movement that nobody is organizing?
The German Pirate Party might disagree. And in this day and age, my guess is that it can take a _lot_ less than 50 years for them to grow strong enough to make a difference internationally. The protests against ACTA seem to reflect a growing awareness about these issues.
(And this growth in awareness is partially driven by Techdirt. Thanks, Mike, and all the staff!)
The DMCA proved that it's possible to write a law which makes it illegal to help someone else to do something legal, so I see no reason why one couldn't have a(n equally stupid) law which makes it illegal for people to "conspire" together to run a company which provides service X, even if this service is totally legal.
You're just an **AA girl, in the **AA world
Perhaps reading the arguments of the other side would be more effective rather than just spouting off drivel? You seem to have totally forgotten the argument which has been set out over and over again in this and similar discussions: namely, that this "disruption" is not likely to be effective for more than a short period of time, and its likely effect will be to merely cause P2P technology to become less vulnerable to such kinds of attacks.
Re: is this your copyright?
The problem with your theory is that you are already bankrupted by lawyer's fees by the time you are able to file your first filing in Federal court.
OTOH, I see a shining future for all kinds of infringing material being disseminated while claiming to be licensed. (This was thought of, already, and made into a separate crime, if I am not mistaken.)
Re: Hopes that will be dashed.
Sadly I don't have that much faith in the Senate.
$276K of trading per day on Mt. Gox alone
Yes, the report itself showcases information about the trading volume on Mt. Gox currently being around $276K per day.
In my opinion, however, just trading shouldn't really be considered "use". The report has no firm information on the volume of bitcoins actually used to buy real goods or services.
Sure confused those media CEO morons-in-a-hurry
Way to go, media industry. Back a company which intentionally calls itself "Pirate Pay" in order to "steal" the brand recognition of a famous website.
The hypocrisy would be pathetic if it weren't already so typical it's even expected.
Don't fall into the trap
You should also review this Techdirt post.
Waves, however, does seem to be a good example of a company whose (current) business model is doomed by the progress of technology. Once Waves' algorithms have been reverse engineered (and any patents have run out), their only distinguishing feature which will remain is their "brand recognition". I doubt they'll last very long once it gets to that point. And even if they are constantly improving their algorithms, the law of diminishing returns will eventually stop that because human hearing is not constantly improving (or at least, not at a significant rate).
Waves, as another Techdirt (counter?) example
> if you don't need Waves to create great music,
> why do they even exist?
The following information is based on a conversation I had once, a long time ago, with someone who worked at Waves. So I apologize ahead of time if it is not 100% correct.
When Waves' price point was set, Waves couldn't be run on consumer grade hardware. It needed to be run on custom-designed DSP boards which were part of the product --- one of the reasons for the "uber-price", back then.
Unfortunately for Waves, Moore's Law doesn't apply to human ears, so now many off-the-shelf computers are powerful enough to run Waves, and Waves' only distinguishing feature is the more advanced, internal algorithmic know-how. Because Waves' potential market is small, it seems that they've decided that lowering its price would not generate significantly more income for them.
If we compare Waves' situation to, for example, Paulo Coelho in a knee-jerk fashion, we would come to the conclusion that Waves' management "doesn't get it". However, it is not at all clear that they are stupid. My understanding is that all of the big recording studios pay for Waves without a second thought, so the lost income from them would have to be offset by hundreds of times more sales to indie musicians like Dan, who are more likely to decide not to pay even for a cheaper product (or at least, not until they start making significant money from their music).
Who exactly was injured?
Your post is confused. You make it seem like Waves has been injured ("and against Waves wishes" [sic]), when, in reality, you should be ranting about the "lost sale" to the producers of the "very, very good plug-ins that most people use". Unfortunately, you can't stir up enough moral panic about that because it's not clear from what he wrote that Dan didn't pay for one of those (and decide to use Waves instead).
So where is our indignation supposed to come from? You also emphasize that the difference in quality of the music Dan produces using Waves compared to the other plugins is not very significant, so you undercut the only other argument I can see is possible (which you didn't even attempt to make), which is to be indignant that Dan is "cheating" in the competition with other musicians.
So, while I found your post interesting, it was totally ineffective in generating the effect which I believe you desired. About the only thing which would have generated that kind of moral outrage is Dan thanking everyone for enabling him to earn hundreds of thousands of pounds, while, at the same time, saying that even though he's totally capable now of paying for Waves without thinking twice, he's still not going to do it (for whatever reason).
Re: Utility vs. Money
All this discussion, especially the paragraph which includes
reminds me, again, of Lars Doucet's and The Mighty Buzzard's theories about four or more "currencies", and the commentary/discussion in Techdirt.Mod it up (funny)!
Yes, I agree, everyone should press the "funny" button on that post. Let's see if we can get it to be the funniest post of the week!
Re: Re:
You could have purchased a few from Baen, they've never had DRM as far as I can see. Myself, this means that I'm actually going to send them email commending them on this decision, and I'll pick out the book which seems the most interesting and buy it, just to put my wallet where my ideology is.
Re:
Wow, yes, I hadn't thought of that. Is it similar to how they cannot extend the term of copyright as much as they want because the Constitution says it is for a "limited time"?
Er, never mind...
Re: Re:
Laws which work mechanically are unlikely to be respected.
Even more bizarrely, given the wording of the US copyright act, it would seem that if one buys a painting in Europe, one still needs the permission of the rightsholder to bring it back home (import it) to the US.
Re:
+1 for figuring out that Glyn isn't Mike.
Unfortunately, that's not going to help your infinitely negative karma.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It isn't a 'massive fail' unless it's tested in the courts and the author is found to be wrong.
It is a massive fail for society as a whole that people choose to waste their own time and the justice system's time (and possibly channel their own money to lawyers) for no good reason.
<snarkmode>
If this phenomenon becomes more widespread, authors everywhere will be going bankrupt paying lawyer's fees and court fees. Don't you even think of the authors?</snarkmode>
Re: Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals
> As a musician, I believe most people would agree
> that copyrights should be protected.
No, a lot of us think that you're confusing the mechanism (copyright) with the goal (musicians getting paid). If you ask the _right_ questions, I think you'd see that most people would agree that "musicians should get paid" and they _wouldn't_ agree with current copyright law, if they actually understood its ramifications.
Citation needed?
> When that is your endgame
Whose endgame? Mike _repeatedly_ states that he hopes that all of these megacorps and their execs will "get it", and not write themselves into the corner of history where the dinosaurs found themselves.
The fact is that the subject matter of this blog is (partially at least) "how the megacorps DON'T get it". Your call for balance because "they are megacorps" is a falacious "argument from authority". Your call for balance because these megacorps, in the past, were a useful societal force which produced for us plenty of nice music is a falacious "argument from antiquity".
And the whole point of this post is to point out that Mike _isn't_ demonizing (as in, threatening them with violence, or calling them scum) people with points of view he disagrees with. For another example, in the post about Teller's lawsuit, where Mike disagrees with Teller's choice of action, the worst thing he says about it is that he is "disappointed" and that, even, only about the action itself (Mike doesn't attack Teller personally, for example).
In this light, your argument boils down to: "since Mike isn't a nice cheerleader for *all* points of view, he should expect to be excoriated" --- which makes no sense whatsoever, except possibly if you mean that _everyone_ who wants to publicly state an opinion on the net should expect _someone_ to abuse him, even if it is totally unjustified.
Obligatory
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/10/30
Re: Re: Re:
> ... without a organized movement that nobody is organizing?
The German Pirate Party might disagree. And in this day and age, my guess is that it can take a _lot_ less than 50 years for them to grow strong enough to make a difference internationally. The protests against ACTA seem to reflect a growing awareness about these issues.
(And this growth in awareness is partially driven by Techdirt. Thanks, Mike, and all the staff!)
Look at the DMCA
The DMCA proved that it's possible to write a law which makes it illegal to help someone else to do something legal, so I see no reason why one couldn't have a(n equally stupid) law which makes it illegal for people to "conspire" together to run a company which provides service X, even if this service is totally legal.