“I recognize that you disagree with me, but, seriously, you’ve got to come up with better arguments than this.

That has not happened. If the music business is doing fine, without copyright, why are they clamouring for greater copyright enforcement?

Don’t confusing the *recording* industry with the *music* industry.”

A large part of the “music” industry is still intertwined with the “recording” industry. How many of the top acts are independent? Do you mean to say the members of the “music” industry have freed themselves of the shackles of copyright and embraced your grand free model? With stray exceptions like Reznor, all top acts continue to be part and parcel of the recording industry.

“Demise of copyright? When did that happen? Or do you mean the annihilation of the idea of copyright in the digital domain, thanks to a six-letter word called piracy?

I was merely pointing out that the shift in making money from music has moved away from relying on copyright — as I already explained. And it hasn’t hurt the music business. And, again, no it’s not about piracy, no matter how many times you insist on pinning that label on everything I describe.”

You’ll never agree with me on this point, I know. But it is the elephant in the room. No matter how much you pretend it isn’t. In another blog post, you had said people will find a way to copy their content. Wasn’t that a tacit admission?

“But you just said there has been a fall in the sales of shiny discs, which is what CDs look like. You also said Internet promotion works. Then why has it not led to a jump in CD sales? Topping handwaving with contradictions?

Again, I was talking about promotion of the overall music business — which I explained. I’m not sure what you think is handwaving, because I thought I was quite clear on that. CD sales are down because it’s a substitute. The music itself acts as a promotion for all those other *scarce* goods that aren’t substitutes.”

In earlier posts, you have said CDs are scarce goods that artists could make money out of. Now this. Mike, it’s getting tiresome.

“You really want to attack me, I understand, but your arguments need to at least make sense. Try to read what I actually wrote rather than what you want me to write. It’ll make this debate a lot more interesting.”

No. My point is not to attack you. I don’t have any agenda, Mike. If I have given that impression I am sorry. I apologize. Maybe I should have just read the post, chuckled and moved on. I wanted to engage with you on “what you actually wrote,” not what I imagine you have. I follow this blog closely, I’ve read a lot of your stuff. It’s only when I find all these contradictions and handwaving that I get provoked and write these awfully long replies.

“Besides the point? I thought that was the core point. But of course, I’m not Mike Masnick.

Two points:

* Copyright was never intended to protect from harm. It was created as an incentive to create.

* More importantly, the reason I said this was besides the point was that if there’s *no actual harm* the question of why laws are in place doesn’t matter. Williams entire point is based on the idea that there’s harm. If there’s no harm, it’s besides the point.”

Of course, that’s what I was also stating. Copyright violation harms the labels. He’s arguing for protection of the labels, which is why I thought it was not beside the point at all, but central to his defense.

“
At this point I’m repeating myself.

The harm or perceived harm is being done to the labels.

And we need a law to protect harm to the labels? Where was the law to protect harm done to the horse and buggy makers? Do you support laws protecting any business that has a bad business model and goes out of business?”

Who decides what is a good or bad model? You may think this model doesn’t work, but Hank does and perceives harm. Whether we need to protect the labels is a totally different issue.

“If every band/musician can become a super success on the Internet, no one would give a rat’s ass about shows like American Idol, which provide a platform for you to reach the whole world and help you strike deals with labels who will take care of promoting you and your music, touring, merchandising, press, PR, worldwide sales, etc.

Huh? I know you’ve been commenting here for a while, but I really have to question if you’ve read what I’ve written, or if you’ve just decided what you think I said. You keep creating these strawmen.”

So the Internet is not the panacea for upcoming musicians. They do need the marketing muscle that labels provide. Again, my bad. I assumed you were touting the Internet as the be-all and end-all of music promotion. But I hope you will notice that all the other media and channels, such as television, American Idol, etc…rely heavily on copyright.

“”Arguing against a strawman may make you feel right, but you’ll find it does little to convince anyone that you’re actually right.”

I am not trying to convince anyone I am right. What I am merely trying to do is hold up your contentions and see if they stand every test. We live in exciting times and your ideas seem different. I am just trying to convince myself how far Mike is right. And the more I read, the clearer the picture.

“That’s a whole lot different from saying he’s opposed to any change in the copyright law. As usual, you are putting words into people’s mouths, something you have elevated to a fine art.

Funny. This from the guy who has repeatedly put words in my mouth. This from the guy who says that I’ve said record labels shouldn’t exist. This from the guy who insists I’m really talking about piracy, when I am not.

Your credibility here is nonexistent.”

Wow, what an ad hominem attack! You really are pissed, aren’t you? Sorry mate, you just put words into Hank’s mouth, trying to twist them into meaning what he did not say. I merely point it out and you refuse to accept it. Your supersensitive ego is making any sort of civil debate difficult.

“Isn’t it? If there were no piracy, why would we even be discussing alternative business models?

Absolutely. I was talking about this stuff before Napster existed.”

I didn’t know that. I was new to the net when Napster happened. But why would you want to take away so much revenue from content sales from a company by asking them to give it away free? Because if there were no piracy, everyone would be purchasing MP3 files instead of CDs, and companies would not scream from the rooftops about falling revenues.

“Cram, again, I recognize that for whatever reason, you are still not convinced by what I write here. Fair enough. But I would suggest for the betterment of this entire conversation that you stop raising strawman arguments and focus on what I have actually said.”

You conveniently ignore points that I raise, just as you have done with others (Alexander comes to mind). I am not surprised. As for my time spent here, it’s never wasted, I can assure you. It gives me a better understanding of what’s happening to the content landscape and what factors shape it.