Unfortunately and ironically, the tech community bought these over reaching measures on themselves by rejecting ANY copyright based potential business models for the future. That left the old school copyright based industries no choice but to fight for its survival. You guys should have compromised and used your “intellect” to incorporate the new with the old – instead you said “screw copyrights” – BIG mistake.

I think it really doesn’t matter what laws the entertainment industry buys, sooner or later they will become irrelevant. We the people will only obey a law if it suits us.

Seriously, the copyright-based industries also rejected any copyright-based potential business models for the future. They finally got on board iTunes but didn’t exactly try very hard themselves.

“by rejecting ANY copyright based potential business models for the future”

do you mean not wanting to pay ridiculous license fees that keep a service from being profitable like pandora or netflix or do you mean we didn’t turn the internet into broadcast television?

I know right, how dare they focus on a horrible bill that congress is trying to push through at the moment. Can’t we get some articles about the beiber baby or something, this whole focusing on major current events is really stupid.

Those sites have to have a /big draw/, NOT videos of cats.

and your statement isn’t true anyways. Microsoft uses copy protection laws to protect Windows, Youtube pays royalties when people view certain videos. So quit your lies.

Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2011 @ 12:54pm

Why should the tech community have to accept an IP based business model?
——————

Because the “tech community” /relies/ on IP that they don’t produce. If you don’t /pay/ for the production of content, then you /don’t/ get to use it to make money.

IF producing “content” is SO easy and profitable, then why isn’t everyone in THAT business instead of “tech”?

I know you overvalue content and devalue service and I think I may understand why now. Since its nearly impossible for you to type a sentence and have it make sense let alone make it through a whole paragraph you must think people who can write an entire story are gods.

There is one pretty big problem with this study: It didn’t ask the angel investors what they would do instead. These guys don’t sit on their money and wait for it to rain gold, they go out and get involved in things. If they aren’t invest in DCI, they will look somewhere else.

Perhaps the smart ones will look for DCIs that have legal or supportable models, and be able to actually attract an audience and thrive.

It’s hard to measure the “chill” in this case, because a lack of investment in A doesn’t preclude them from doing B.

I would say that the study is a little bit one sided.

Oh yeah, let’s play fair here:

“This report was financed by Google Inc.”

Smells like they got the result they were looking for.

They’re in the 1%, or trying to be. Yet again, Mike’s focus is on the already upper class, and specifically here, on a species of grifters whose notion of “business model” is EASY QUICK PROFITS by leveraging the actual work-products of others.

“VCs and angels are what make new startups possible” — Not true. Ideas plus labor to produce actual goods are what /add/ value to society. Mike simply favors those looking for easy ways to skim values. Henry Ford wasn’t under any such delusions (I don’t recall exact quote): The product pays the workers.

Mike wants to further help those who get their products FREE from someone else — whether user generated or pirated, it’s someone other than the site owner — and their income ALSO comes from someone who has REAL products: advertisers. The mentioned “VCs and angels” wish to just sit in the middle there and SKIM. That’s no way to run a “capitalist” economy, it’s JUST re-distribution!

You want to know what investors will do with their money instead of SOPA passes? They’ll sit on it and wait for something safer with less liabilities to come along.

All the money (and tax revenue) that could have been generated from Internet successes will be gone, starved in their infancy.

Just because something is worth investing in for how it’ll benefit investors/customers doesn’t mean it gets invested in. There’s ways to build coal powered plants that create energy twice as efficient as any power plant in the US (most power plants run on coal even today). No one in the US has invested in it however, why? Because the start up costs are too expensive, and back when the technology was first thought up it was viewed as too risky. Now the Russians have that more efficient coal powered plants, and American investors still aren’t willing to invest in it, since the Russians would charge them too much for using their technology, technology that was first dreamed of by an American inventor who tried and failed to get US investors and the US government to invest in his idea.

If you delivery garbage that no one wants they will not use your service. It really is co-dependant relationship between the tech industry and the content industry.

No, both sides would be equally full of shit, especially if they don’t ask the next logical question:

If you aren’t investing in X, what are you doing with your money?

Google wanted a specific set of answers, and paid for them. The survey has no crediblity, because it is financed by a company strongly opposed to SOPA, asking a group of people opposed to SOPA if they are actually opposed to SOPA. What the heck do you think the answer would be?

I think that there are many better questions that could have been asked, ones that would be much less slanted.

so you can either have the quick loss, leaving behind hope for the future

OR

you can have the long drawn out loss disguised as a (hollow) victory in which everybody loses world-wide

copyright based industries are doomed and they know it, i am just at loss to understand why is it exactly that they think everyone else needs to be dragged down with them

Are you trying to speak blue?

You can argue with blue until your head turns blue but it’s not going to teach him anything, no matter what language you use.

I’d like to see how the “content” industry would do without the “tech community”.

Yes, and as people are realising that as distribution is easier and cheaper with the Internet, those same people aren’t willing to pay the exorbitant costs that the gatekeepers are still demanding.

It’s the content guys who need to compromise, no one else.

They need to provide a convenient, reasonable priced alternative to piracy, and people will pay. They just can’t expect people to buy the same thing multiple times for different platforms at what people see as an unreasonable price for the means of distribution.

The days were “big content” can command monopoly prices are gone, and if they don’t adapt, so too will they be…

Fight harder you are not winning LoL

Actually, Mike calls bullshit on every one of them, because he doesn’t agree with them – but he is more than willing to run this one sided piece of shit because he agrees.