Nirvana's Bassist: I Don't Understand Having ISPs Regulate Copyright Files, But I Support Bono's Position Anyway

from the speaking-from-ignorance...-and-admitting-it dept

It's one thing to speak from a position of ignorance, but admitting it and still then taking a strong position? That's something special. U2's Bono kicked off quite a firestorm by insisting that having ISPs monitor everything was a good way to deal with unauthorized file sharing online, citing China's success with internet censorship (failing to realized that it hasn't been that successful in reality). This resulted in widespread criticism of Bono and it appears that Nirvana's bass player, Krist Novoselic, has stepped up to defend Bono (found via Karl Bode). But what's stunning about Novoselic's "defense" is that he flat out admits he doesn't really understand the details and still defends Bono:
I'll admit that I'm not up to speed on having ISPs regulate copyrighted material, but here's why I agree with Bono on the idea of compensation for content providers
So he doesn't understand the issue, but he supports Bono's position anyway? Yeah, that's reasonable. And the worst part is the end of that sentence. It implies that some people out there don't support compensation of content providers. That's silly. Everyone supports the compensation of content providers -- they just don't support that compensation coming from some sort of involuntary tax put on internet connections. Assuming that being against ISP tracking and payments means that there's no other way for content providers to get paid is simply wrong.

The rest of his post is interesting, but either pulls out some old canards or is self-contradictory. For example, he confuses "value" with "price" by warning that music can't be worth nothing. Yet, at the same time, he goes on and on about how great things like YouTube and Twitter are for promoting his music -- while also wishing they would pay him for promoting his music. He never seems to put two and two together to realize that by promoting music and bands, a fan base is built up that helps an artist make more money -- and YouTube and Twitter are doing this for free. Prior to the internet becoming mainstream, if a musician wanted to communicate with fans, it was an expensive and time consuming direct mail process. Now Twitter has made that free for bands. Before, if a band wanted to get fans to see its videos, it had to hope it could get them on MTV. Even after the internet came about, communicating with fans was still expensive and time consuming, as was posting videos. Twitter and YouTube have made these things much easier, faster and cheaper for bands. And he's complaining?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    The Anti-Mike (profile), Jan 6th, 2010 @ 12:36pm

    he goes on and on about how great things like YouTube and Twitter are for promoting his music -- while also wishing they would pay him for promoting his music.

    He probably looks at youtube as essentially the same as radio or MTV. They get the use of the product for a small fee, and in return, they get to sell ads. While it does promote the music to some extent, it more often promotes the youtube brand as well. The more people that come to Youtube to see their videos, the more youtube profits.

    It's sort of your typical "smart - dumb" play. I think he is smart to realize that his music still has both value and price. The longer the price remains at zero, the more likely the value will approach it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Jan 6th, 2010 @ 12:48pm

    Re:

    Since the very beginning of radio, musicians and labels have paid radio stations for airplay. It's called payola.

    Now people like you are claiming that the last 80s years have been a fluke and the money should flow the other way.

    Here's a simpler idea. If Krist Novoselic does not like his music on YouTube, he should simply not use it. God, how fricken simple is that?!

    And here's a clue. Krist Novoselic does not pull his music from YouTube because Google is providing a very valuable service for which he pays nothing.

    He talks about how people should get paid for their work, maybe he should start paying Google for his use of YouTube.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Jan 6th, 2010 @ 12:57pm

    Re: Re:

    Please don't feed the trolls.
    Igtor (or TAM) speaks out of a wonderful ignorance, and cannot deal with or answer simple logical questions.
    Let's ignore him, maybe he'll go away. ;P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    The Anti-Mike (profile), Jan 6th, 2010 @ 1:00pm

    Re: Re:

    Sorry, but you get it wrong.

    Since the very beginning of radio, musicians and labels have paid radio stations for airplay. It's called payola.

    Some record companies have illegally paid to get music on the radio that otherwise would not make playlists, or specifically to keep others music off the playlists. For the most part, it's used to get airplay for crappy acts with little or no hope to getting noticed.

    It isn't how the system works, it's how corruption works. That is a very different animal.

    If Krist Novoselic does not like his music on YouTube, he should simply not use it.

    Sadly, on of the ongoing issues with "user submitted content" websites is that the artist doesn't get to make that choice, "fans" make that choice. This isn't something that is easily within his control.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Jan 6th, 2010 @ 1:08pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "For the most part, it's used to get airplay for crappy acts with little or no hope to getting noticed."

    Maybe you can provide some evidence to back that up. I won't hold my breath.

    "It isn't how the system works, it's how corruption works."

    Why is paying for a service corruption? Don't you think that people should have a right to contract for services?

    If a musician wants to pay a radio to play its music, he should be allowed to do so. As you learn from the link I already provided, the reason people freaked out about payola during the 50s, even though it was quite common in the decades prior, was that it was being used to promote the evil of rock and roll.

    "the artist doesn't get to make that choice, "fans" make that choice."

    It's all fun and all to make up facts. But in this case we know for a fact that Novoselic does put his music on YouTube. So, once again, if he does not like it, he should stop doing it. And once again, he most certainly will not stop because even he admits that he benefits from it.

    See how easy it is when you use the given and verified facts rather than argue from facts you've made up yourself?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Jan 6th, 2010 @ 1:09pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Again, not sure why you say that when he is simply posing a different point of view. Sometimes (arguably often) TAM and other trolls are aggressive, disingenuous and intentionally inflammatory - that's when they should be ignored. But this is not one of those times.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    a-dub (profile), Jan 6th, 2010 @ 1:11pm

    Krist Novoselic...isnt that the turd burglar that tosses his bass into the air and failed to catch it before it smashed into his skull? I think so...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8oT9ag631Q&feature=related

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Jan 6th, 2010 @ 1:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Try asking for anything which requires both thought and proof. It's a shame to speak loudly out of ignorance, but some people apparently cannot help it. On multiple occasions I asked Igtor a few basic questions related to the topic at hand which would help ascertain his knowledge--turns out, he has none. Apparently, cannot cite a fact to save his life (good thing he doesn't work near me x_x ). I even offered to always offer an intellectual counter-point to his nonsensical arguments if only he'd demonstrate some learning.

    I hope this has been adequately explanatory.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 6th, 2010 @ 1:20pm

    Novoselic...

    is just in love with Bono.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Steve R. (profile), Jan 6th, 2010 @ 1:32pm

    The Slippery Slope

    If ISP are "required" to protect a special interest, such as that of a copyright holder we will begin to see other groups begin to claim an equal entitlement that ISP protect them too. I can see it now, ISP required to inspect every packet for porn, gambling, smoking, cruelty to animals, and eating too many big macs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Jan 6th, 2010 @ 1:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "simply posing a different point of view"

    He does not simply pose a different point of view. He consistently poses a different point of view. Sometimes I agree with Mike. Sometimes I disagree with Mike. The Anti-Mike has never conceded a single one of Mike's points ever.

    That makes him a troll. And if I had noticed it was him, I would not have responded to his comment. I've already wasted time responding to his nonsensical response.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 6th, 2010 @ 1:49pm

    Re: The Slippery Slope

    You subversives crack me up. Of course ISPs should filter those things.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Lucretious, Jan 6th, 2010 @ 2:14pm

    Re: Re: The Slippery Slope

    Troll is Trolling....poorly

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    drone, Jan 6th, 2010 @ 2:15pm

    Following to logical conclusions...

    I know, I know, it's a slippery slope argument, but I'm going to say it anyhow =)

    If we make the ISPs enforce copyright, must we also make them enforce fraud, theft, hacking, and well, pretty much every other law (or regulation).

    I mean, it's one thing to say they should cooperate with law enforcement when presented with an appropriate request (subpoena?) - but it -really does seem to be- a slippery slope to ask them to be the _enforcers_ of a particular set of laws. I mean, jeez, if they can stop every case of copyright infringement, they can certainly stop every case of 'spam', or wire fraud. I'd say the identification and prevention of each of these activities is about equally complex from a technical perspective.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Chucklebutte (profile), Jan 6th, 2010 @ 2:20pm

    Its getting old

    How many times do we have to take an ass pounding before we get a reach around? I mean its the least you can do to someone you are raping, I mean that is if you have any common courtesy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Jake, Jan 6th, 2010 @ 2:34pm

    I'll give him one thing. He's honest enough to own up to not having a clue what he's talking about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    cc, Jan 6th, 2010 @ 2:44pm

    It does not seem to be a coincidence that both of these guys are old, but still active musicians, even though they must both be quite wealthy.

    (I also distinctly remember Bono et al were criticised for relocating their music catalogue from Ireland to avoid taxes on their royalties.)

    So, on first look, to me it appears that both of them have an "entrepreneurial" spirit (not the teen spirit any more) -- they're past their use-by date, filthy rich, but _still_ trying to hoard more. They want to milk their fame for all it's worth, and are simply annoyed that someone somewhere may get their stuff for free (and they may be losing a penny).

    What bugs them is simply the _idea_ of piracy rather than any visible financial damage to their persons. For that reason, I think their opinions should not count as opinions of artists, but as opinions of senior execs...!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    DS, Jan 6th, 2010 @ 2:46pm

    "So he doesn't understand the issue, but he supports Bono's position anyway?"

    Sounds like someone in line for a cabinet position!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    The Anti-Mike (profile), Jan 6th, 2010 @ 3:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Pay for Play, when properly disclosed, is legal. There are plenty of examples of it out there. Payola is a different game, where amounts are paid in private, without disclosure.

    The recent issues of bloggers and such being required to disclose when they are paid for posting or have a relationship with companies they are posting about. When it's done above board and clearly, it is acceptable and legal.

    Maybe you can provide some evidence to back that up. I won't hold my breath.

    http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2176/whats-the-story-on-the-radio-payola-scandal -of-the-1950s

    The question was how best to exploit that fickle market. At the time, a major record company might release upwards of a hundred singles a week. Then as now, maybe 10 percent of those would become hits, or at least make a profit for the label. Radio airplay was the easiest way for an artist to get exposure and sell records, but with singles pouring into the stations at such a fast clip, labels needed a way to distinguish their songs from those of their competitors. Since this was before the era of MTV and slick promotions, bribery seemed the way to go. Record labels hired promoters who paid deejays to feature songs by favored artists.

    Any questions?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Jan 6th, 2010 @ 3:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I completely agree with both of you. You will notice in my comments that I have gotten pretty frustrated with AM a few times for exactly what you are saying -- refusing to concede points or acknowledge the other side.

    My point is, we can't make him go away. But we can fix his behaviour by responding when he is being somewhat reasonable and ignoring him when he's being a jerk. It's no fair to jump down his throat right off the bat every single time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Steve R. (profile), Jan 6th, 2010 @ 3:43pm

    Re: Following to logical conclusions...

    Surely you jest. Due process is so old age. Corporations, in the name of protecting their revenue stream, are entitled to take what ever whimsical action is necessary to protect that stream. Even to the point of forcing you (a third party) to "arrest" some miscreant based on the their finger of assigned guilt.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Steffen, Jan 6th, 2010 @ 3:53pm

    germany calling

    just a late night comment from my desk in germany where i am sitting writing my thesis about CwF+RtB=$$$, musicmarketing nowadays, all the theory behind it, pros and cons (really enjoying the discussion!) and i just realized how far behind we are over here:
    bands rarely try out new ideas, there is the almighty GEMA (monopoly) that deals with the rights of the composers, you need to register EVERYTHING you publish. even putting up a promotion track on your website costs 30Euros per month. if you sign up you are bound for at least 3 years. right, you get royalties from airplay and live from all over germany, but if you are a small act, the clubs wont let you play because they cant afford the GEMA-fee...
    anyway, just reading an article from the faz-newspaper (frankfurt) and it ends with a few examples of "new strategies", last one from a swiss band "the bianca story" that EVEN DARED to make just one cd and to sell it at an auction - starting at 10.000 Euros. wow. revolutionary! no examples from german bands...dont think they exist. at least not in any "mainstream-scale".
    i am desperate for some experiments here in the old world. i might start some...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 6th, 2010 @ 3:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: The Slippery Slope

    No trolling, just fact.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Henry Emrich (profile), Jan 6th, 2010 @ 4:47pm

    Wow. The pattern is so obvious:

    1. "Celebrity" says something manifestly stupid.
    2. Mike highlights that fact, and explains why it's stupid.
    3. "Anti-Mike" immediately -- and reflexively -- defends "celebrity" stupidity.
    4. Other posters jump in and start to troll-smash "Anti-Mike" (don't get me wrong, he richly deserves it -- and I've done it myself.
    5. Other posters protest that he's "just expressing a different point of view", proving that they have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of things like subtext (hint: "Anti-Mike" is a tip-off as to his real agenda for posting here.)

    This pattern repeats over, and over, and over in EVERY thread. Oh wait, I'm wrong: occasionally (and refreshingly, I might add), "Sam I Am" pops up, posts yet another revision of his patented "civil liberties are expendable when commerce is threatened, but I'm no friend of the Cartels"-speech, and STILL manages to completely fail to ever address issues like whether copyright is a limited-duration monopoly privilege, whether corporate lobbyists/their corporate paymasters have violated the "copyright bargain" by (retroactive) term extensions, etc. etc.

    Don't take him up on it, folks: I'll admit I had quite a bit of fun with him over on p2pnet -- and other places -- but I can tell you from previous experience that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING YOU CAN SAY -- no point you can raise, no "evidence" you can give --- that has any chance whatsoever of "turning" Anti-Mike OR "Sam I Am" into free-culture activists.
    They are corporate shills of the lowest order, and the mere fact that "Sam I Am" can DARE to claim that our "civil liberties" are expendable, but corporate excess is NOT, is pretty much all the proof you need.

    And the absolute worst part of it is: *WE* hand them everything on a silver platter, the moment we make it an issue of whether creators are "getting paid". Debating the merits of particular business-models is all well and good, provided that there remains some sphere of cultural life which does NOT get reduced to mere pecuniary haggling.

    Because, quite frankly, some methods of "getting paid" are indefensible: corporate lobbyists buying themselves out of the "copyright bargain" just to squeeze a few more decades of extortion out of their monopoly -- should be regarded as problematic ESPECIALLY when those defending such tactics dismiss the negative impact such draconian measures will inevitably have on our "civil liberties" as of no concern -- OR EVEN BLAME THE VICTIMS.

    Sure, trolls: the corporate megaliths/their cronies in government "Have to" resort to totalitarian bullshit. The essence of all such "arguments" is that "freedom" is only tolerable WHEN IT ISN'T USED. Recognition of monopoly privileges for what they are, urging that those privileges be CURBED in the greater public interest, or even acknowledging the fact that coercive attempts to FORCE such privileges down everyone else's throats WILL BE RESISTED EN MASSE, is somehow just viewed as a thinly-veiled cover-story by those who supposedly "don't want to buy stuff".

    I'm out, folks. Have fun "debating" the same tired, idiotic nonsense with the same recurring cast of trolls, shills, and wannabe-tyrants. Fuck it.

    I'm not going to bother, because quite frankly, if what they're trying to do *isn't* resisted, then we deserve whatever they can manage to do to us.

    Keep up the good work, Mike.
    "Sam": nice to see you back! I actually admire the tenacity, although I still wonder why anybody who (by his own admission) "hates" the corporate media megaliths because they "extort" him for the use of "their" still-monopolized content (yes, I still remember!) wouldn't be right there on the front-lines of these issues, advocating AT THE LEAST, for really serious copyright reform/a resurgent Public Domain.

    But whatever.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 6th, 2010 @ 4:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: The Slippery Slope

    The fact that you're a moron?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 6th, 2010 @ 4:57pm

    Re: Wow. The pattern is so obvious:

    I love the public domain! All of the greatest works reside in the public domain. What's not to love?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jan 6th, 2010 @ 5:12pm

    Re: Wow. The pattern is so obvious:

    "Sam": nice to see you back! I actually admire the tenacity, although I still wonder why anybody who (by his own admission) "hates" the corporate media megaliths because they "extort" him for the use of "their" still-monopolized content (yes, I still remember!) wouldn't be right there on the front-lines of these issues, advocating AT THE LEAST, for really serious copyright reform/a resurgent Public Domain.

    Just to clarify, I believe Anti-Mike and Sam I Am are two separate people, with different styles.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    Henry Emrich (profile), Jan 6th, 2010 @ 5:37pm

    Re: Re: Wow. The pattern is so obvious:

    Oh, I already knew that.
    I'm "name-checking" Sam in *this* thread, basically because I didn't want to bother going over to the Mininova thread.

    I'm really familiar with Sam's "style" (used to be a fairly regular contributor over on p2pnet -- Jon Newton and I had a little "dispute" over the fact that he's now best pals with Billy Bragg).

    "Sam" and I have history. I've been involved with "debates" with the guy for years.

    When you say you "believe" that Sam I am and Anti-Mike are two different posters, does that mean there's a possibility that they're not? Just curious.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 6th, 2010 @ 7:06pm

    I used to listen to Nirvana years back. Heck, the Foo fighters are great partly because they have Dave Grohl.

    I find this very disturbing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jan 6th, 2010 @ 7:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Wow. The pattern is so obvious:


    When you say you "believe" that Sam I am and Anti-Mike are two different posters, does that mean there's a possibility that they're not? Just curious.


    There's always a possibility, right? Hell, he could change his IP address when posting under a different personality.

    But it seems quite unlikely.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Justin, Jan 6th, 2010 @ 7:57pm

    Mike, I appreciate your website and read it often to keep up on the latest in internet developments and news regarding all things digital. I haven't commented but a few times over the years. I've watched you debate lawyers, record company employees, and Billy Bragg. I've not said anything in direct response to this subject but have wanted to for a long time.

    I believe in your argument against Mr. Novoselic you cloud over a couple things.

    Novoselic states he doesn't understand isp filtering but agrees with Bono's underlying statement of compensation. It's two separate statements that you combine into your single response that he supports something he knows nothing about. I believe his intent is to support Bono's overall view in his piece. Your statement is misleading and erroneous and intends to make him look foolish and impetuous.

    You also claim that YouTube and Twitter provide free service in regards to promoting musical acts like his. Indeed they do! But both make money off advertising and creating brands (as stated by Anti-Mike) that increase the "value" of those companies. They are de-facto earning revenue by using another's intellectual and commercial property without compensation. Radio has the basically the same business model but does compensate songwriters/publishers to use this material (and you know of the long term argument about compensating artists directly that's been going on for years). Yes, this does work as promotion for the musical act but compensation is made as they are generating revenue off of someones else's material.

    I have followed closely the development of technology for quite a while as it's fascinating and changes rapidly. I do believe that there is no turning back for the way things used to be for the record industry (and I don't like how they run their artists into the ground with those crippling contracts). With the way the internet is headed (and already there in some homes) you can literally see that large files will be traded between people within seconds. In five years I might be able to share the entire Beatles catalog with someone in minutes because I feel like it (and possibly have the technology to not get caught).

    Most musical artists get very little compensation if they don't make themselves a hit, and any form of payment helps them to continue their craft. In the record business, it's quantity over quality and since 95% of artists don't sell a half million or more recordings every little bit counts (again those nasty contracts). I'm not defending Novoselic who's a millionaire in this regard, it's the millions of little acts that get overlooked.

    Don't take me for a shill for the record industry. I'm just a music lover (and more independent than mainstream) that believes the value of music shouldn't be set by technological advancement, it should be set by those that own it and consumers can then make the decision whether or not it has that value to them. (I actually try to bypass iTunes or similar sites and go buy from the artist's site knowing that the money is going directly to them.) If one's intellectual property is used it should be paid for. If it's deemed that isp's ,websites, or both should compensate I'm in agreement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 6th, 2010 @ 9:59pm

    Re:

    "You also claim that YouTube and Twitter provide free service in regards to promoting musical acts like his. Indeed they do! But both make money off advertising and creating brands (as stated by Anti-Mike) that increase the "value" of those companies. They are de-facto earning revenue by using another's intellectual and commercial property without compensation. Radio has the basically the same business model but does compensate songwriters/publishers to use this material (and you know of the long term argument about compensating artists directly that's been going on for years). Yes, this does work as promotion for the musical act but compensation is made as they are generating revenue off of someones else's material."

    But no one is forcing the artist to put his/her work on Youtube. If the artist puts his/her work on Youtube then the artist has agreed with the terms of service that Youtube will provide a free service in return for the content that the user/artist VOLUNTARILY put on there. If the artist doesn't like it he can't force youtube to broadcast his work and then pay him/her. That's called extortion and extortion should be illegal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    The Anti-Mike (profile), Jan 6th, 2010 @ 10:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow. The pattern is so obvious:

    I can get a new IP at the push of a button, but even Mike knows that I don't spend time trying to hide who I am, except perhaps to get people to debate ideas rather than personality.

    As for my posts, I find that there is much of what Mike posts that is sensationalized or twisted to meet an agenda or belief set that he works from. More often than not, there is missing facts, overlooked angles, and outright misrepresentation of "facts" by only highlighting certain things and ignoring other things that would go against the premise. A lot of people do it, even the mainstream media is guilty sometimes of giving a 30,000 foot view because a closer look might screw up a good story.

    I also tend to object to bootstrapping and posts that can lead people to think that opinions are facts. I tend to point that out, because it often changes the way things play out. DRM tax, anyone?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 6th, 2010 @ 10:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Slippery Slope

    When you're wrong, just start name-calling, huh?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 6th, 2010 @ 11:25pm

    Bono is a damn asshat, Who cares what he says!

    BOYCOTT U2!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    Henry Emrich (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 2:35am

    Several different issues:

    1. Why exactly is Novoselic thinking exclusively in terms of "financial" compensation, here? The fact is, whether Youtube explicitly "pays" him (or anyone, for that matter), they are being "compensated" by way of free -- gratis -- access to the platform itself. It's extremely short-sighted of him not to understand that fact.

    For example: I know that if people come here to read Mike's posts, they're at least somewhat likely to see my comments. "Anti-Mike" knows exactly the same thing. So does "Sam I Am". We *all* know that one of the biggest ways to both get *our* viewpoints out there AND possibly impact the prevaling worldview in regard to stuff like copyright, the public domain, corporate influence in the political process, etc. -- is by commenting here, discussing stuff with with one another, suggesting stories, etc.

    Same goes for *all* bloggers -- at least half of the "brand-identity" (and resulting "value") comes from the audience/fans. Does this mean that Mike -- or any other blogger -- should "compensate" those who comment on his blog/suggest stories, etc. by PAYING us?

    The *real* question is whether Krist agrees with Bono's notion that ISP's should be compelled to spy on their own users, simply so already-wealthy corporate-owned "celebrities" can squeeze a few dollars more.

    Anti-Mike tries to defend itself, by stating:

    "
    As for my posts, I find that there is much of what Mike posts that is sensationalized or twisted to meet an agenda or belief set that he works from. More often than not, there is missing facts, overlooked angles, and outright misrepresentation of "facts" by only highlighting certain things and ignoring other things that would go against the premise. A lot of people do it, even the mainstream media is guilty sometimes of giving a 30,000 foot view because a closer look might screw up a good story."

    Gee, like, say, how *you* consistently ignore the history and original purpose of copyright law? How you relentlessly defend the corporate-owned status quo? No thanks. Your "agenda" isn't about "taking a closer look", and you know it. Your agenda isn't about "injecting balance", either. Your agenda is -- and always has been -- defending whatever Mike happens to dislike, and misunderstanding whatever Mike is trying to say.

    "I also tend to object to bootstrapping and posts that can lead people to think that opinions are facts. I tend to point that out, because it often changes the way things play out. DRM tax, anyone?"

    What, like major-label "artists" opinion that they *deserve* to be paid for any and all uses of "their" content, such that there's effectively no such thing as "fair use?
    Like the specious "opinion" expressed by corporate shills that there is a 1 to 1 relationship between "illegal" downloads and lost sales? Or maybe you mean the "opinion" expressed by many anti-p2p/IP-apologist trolls, that copyright skepticism is simply about "not wanting to pay for stuff."

    Get over yourself, anti-mike. As I told Jon Newton back when he became BFF's with Billy Bragg and Lily Allen over on A2f2a: the corporate media oligarchs don't NEED -- or DESERVE -- help in what they're trying to do. THEIR "agenda" is blindingly obvious, simply because the keep having copyright terms extended, and disruptive technologies banned. Sorry if realizing that "screws up a good story" about "poor, hardworking artists getting screwed by evil pirates."

    And the fact is, advocating police-state tactics JUST to preserve what was only originally intended to be an extremely short-lived commercial monopoly privilege is INDEFENSIBLE.

    Get that through your thick skulls, stop apologizing for draconian bullshit, or at LEAST acknowledge that existing IP law is *drastically* out of control, instead of actively advocating that it be made worse.

    Then maybe some of us will stop thinking you're a troll.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    Henry Emrich (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 2:50am

    Clarification

    "Having disruptive technologies banned" should probably read either "attempting to have potentially-disruptive technologies banned" (Valenti Vs. the VCR, for example), or "attempting to hamper potentially-disruptive *uses* of existing technologies) -- pretty much every effort to have torrent sites suppressed, etc.

    (There: that should head of "Anti-Mike" from saying something like "So just which technologies have they banned, then?")

    See, I *know* how you think.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 5:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't necessarily blame TAM, he's trying to defend an absolutely indefensible position and, given the position he tries to defend, he's doing a pretty good job. It's not that he's stupid, it's that he has no choice but to say stupid things because the pro corporate position he's trying to defend is stupid. Now imagine if he actually tried to defend a half decent position?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 6:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Any questions?"

    How does your explanation cover the payola of the 90s?

    Do you have any references to back up your claims that don't date back 60 years?

    "The recent issues of bloggers and such being required to disclose when they are paid for posting or have a relationship with companies they are posting about."

    I'm pretty sure there's no legal requirement, but the blogger in question would certainly lose readership if exposed doing that secretly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    The Anti-Mike (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 7:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Paul, you need to keep current.

    I'm pretty sure there's no legal requirement, but the blogger in question would certainly lose readership if exposed doing that secretly.

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091005/0943016423.shtml

    As for how my example covers payola in the 90s, the concept is still the same: Getting music on the air to drive consumer demand. Basically, you get a song or band that might not otherwise be of high enough quality to get a fan base only by word of mouth and not good enough to make the play lists, and you pay to make them into a top act. They get played 8 - 10 times per day for a month or two, make it onto the "top 40" list for the station, and start to develop a fan base in that area. The details of how it is done change from time to time, but the concepts remain the same.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    The Anti-Mike (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 9:23am

    Re: Re:

    But no one is forcing the artist to put his/her work on Youtube.

    More often than not, the artists work is on YouTube from fans rather than in the artist's control. This guy could pull anything he posted on youtube, and it would likely remove only a very small amount of the content he is involved in.

    The radio thing is very important: Individual artists don't have to go out and negotiate with the radio stations, the system is in place to pay a set amount without a blink, it is an expense of being in the radio business. Youtube and others like them should be in the same boat, such that artists would automatically get compensated when their work is used, without them having to chance for the money.

    It's a question of who should do the work. If Youtube wants to play videos with music, they should be responsible to pay the rights fees without prompting. Individual artists should not be forced to grovel for money. It should be automatic.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    The Anti-Mike (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 9:26am

    Re: Several different issues:

    Why exactly is Novoselic thinking exclusively in terms of "financial" compensation, here? The fact is, whether Youtube explicitly "pays" him (or anyone, for that matter), they are being "compensated" by way of free -- gratis -- access to the platform itself. It's extremely short-sighted of him not to understand that fact.

    My only point is that it should be Novoselic's choice to enter into that sort of an agreement, not YouTubes. To me, YouTube is doing the equivilent of having a doorman at a bar with a handgun forcing people into the bar to drink. People should come into the bar because of their own desires, they should not be forced to get drunk at gunpoint with someone telling them they should appreciate the drinks.

    It's a question of choice, and it should always be up to the artist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 9:43am

    Re: Re: Following to logical conclusions...

    >Due process is so old age.
    Not really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 9:48am

    Re: Re: Several different issues:

    "It's a question of choice, and it should always be up to the artist."
    So, do you support artist or corporations now?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 10:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    People still listen to the radio?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 10:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Slippery Slope

    ISP's should filter eating too many Big Macs?

    That's rich. You're dumb. Because your reasoning is dumb. And how am I wrong? I don't think it's feasible for ISP's to filter eating too many Big Macs.

    And I'm wrong!?!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 10:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow. The pattern is so obvious:

    DRM should be taxed, yes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 10:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Several different issues:

    It's getting to the point where they're the same thing!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    The Anti-Mike (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 10:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Several different issues:

    It's funny to watch you talk to yourself.

    When I say "artist" in this case, it extends as "artist or the rights holder" whoever that may be. It may be some faceless corporation, it might be Novoselic's bubby. The point is that Youtube shouldn't be the one making the choice for them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 11:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Slippery Slope

    Restrictions are often placed on activities and their promotion that are detrimental to society. For example, I believe that the U.S. places restrictions on the promotion of tobacco products.

    So you're saying that overeating should be promoted even if obesity is a serious health problem with tremendous costs for society? Really?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 11:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Following to logical conclusions...

    >Due process is so old age.
    Not really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona


    You just made his point. That case was was from the civil rights era of the last century, a time long gone.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 1:38pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    First of all, in the case of radio, unless you're a big artist it's unlikely you will get the money. So that system is a fail. It's less likely a system where youtube pays criminal record labels a fee will channel any money to actual artists.

    Secondly, if a fan does upload illegal content to Youtube then if anyone should be punished it's the fan, not Youtube. We shouldn't destroy the entire mail delivery system just because some people might misuse it and likewise we shouldn't destroy the entire Internet just because evil rich record labels and yourself, who don't care for the artists but only pretend to, lobby for it. Youtube should have every right to require only free music on their site, music that they don't have to pay for. It's their private servers and for a thing as harmful to society as intellectual property to cause such a burden to innovation like this is unacceptable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 7:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Slippery Slope

    ISP's should filter eating too many Big Macs?

    Good luck convincing the public to support that position.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 10:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Slippery Slope

    Good luck convincing the public to support that position.

    Or curbs on tobacco. Oh, wait...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2010 @ 11:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Slippery Slope

    That's what governments are for.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    SeanG (profile), Jan 8th, 2010 @ 1:44pm

    Re: The Slippery Slope

    I didn't even know you could download a big mac. What else have I been missing?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    SeanG (profile), Jan 8th, 2010 @ 1:56pm

    Re:

    Good point. Novoselic's post-Nirvana music career is barely a blip on the radar, while Grohl has been at least relevant. I'd even say I like a lot of Dave's work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    michelemichele (profile), Jan 11th, 2010 @ 12:32am

    Music sales happens to be a subject that fascinates me, not so much as a Net person, but as a one-time record store person who had to worry about sales targets & such. I've been wondering what exactly the story is myself, because it's like a mystery that hasn't really been solved yet.

    Being one of the vexed, I see where the industry has alienated most of us customers. Back in my day, the industry wrung its hands over blank cassettes with the same sort of stridency -- it's funny now. This is before root kits, bullshit copy protection, crappy sound quality on iTunes, crappy crap we get with physical CDs (compared to vinyl), remastering remastered remasters, and all the other scams. I don't believe a word out of the industry's collective mouth anymore.

    But... I can't believe file sharing hasn't taken a bite into artist sales, I just can't. How much? I don't know. Is it the same chunk it might have been years ago? Would a lot of people pass on buying their favourite CDs from their fav artists because they can DL them? Would the Net really alter their buying patterns, or would the stuff they DL without buying be stuff they would never have bought anyway? Looking at the top 100 sales is a bit strange: kiddie pop sells, the adult music is so/so. That's a little strange since kids are more adept with the Net & DLing now (right?): you'd think they'd be DLing Britny Spears, not buying her albums.

    No matter how outrageous their hypocrisy, I do think the artists have a right to their $$, but that right should not trump common sense, and they should do their homework on quick fix-its they think will address their concerns.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    AgafonovPetr20, Jun 9th, 2010 @ 12:00pm

    комментарий к теме

    современный ремонт квартир по приемлемой цене

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    funkyfail (profile), Oct 6th, 2010 @ 3:39am

    comment

    Строительство и ремонт квартир Киев

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    , Jan 17th, 2011 @ 5:44am

    stabill.ucoz.ua

    !

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This