Dead Kennedys Guitarist Joins Crusade Against Ad Networks & YouTube Despite Understanding Neither

from the make-it-stop dept

At the always wonderful SF Music Tech conference yesterday, I went to what should have been a fascinating panel discussion about "artist revenue streams." It had Kristin Thomson from the Future of Music Coalition, talking about their wonderful artist revenue streams project, as well as Steve Rennie, who manages the band Incubus, among others. And then there was the third panelist, East Bay Ray, of the band The Dead Kennedys. Despite that band once mocking the whole "home taping is killing music" argument, it appears that he's now turned into one of those grumpy old musicians who demands that everyone else figure out a way to pay him.
So, rather than an interesting discussion about artist revenue streams, the panel basically turned into a big rant from East Bay Ray complaining about all these internet sites that don't pay him. His misunderstandings were legion. He held up a screenshot of a file sharing site in Russia, showing Dead Kennedys songs on them, and noted that he doesn't get paid for those. And, of course, those sites have ads. This is the thing that gets me. A group of music industry folks, led by Jon Taplin at USC, who don't seem to have the slightest clue about how online advertising actually works, keep insisting that when they see an ad from a big company on a site that has infringing materials, it means that "the pirates are getting rich and the artists are getting screwed."

What I find amusing is that professional musicians so often insist that others are simply not qualified to speak about the music business. And yet, they have absolutely no problem pretending they know how internet advertising works. Let's make this simple: internet display ads pay next to nothing -- especially on sites like the one that Ray was complaining about. Those kinds of sites can only get deals with complete bottom of the barrel remnant ad providers, whose payout numbers are so small that most people would laugh. Some -- like Google's AdSense -- only payout if people click, and these days no one clicks on banner ads. They don't even see them. These sites make next to nothing. I'd be amazed if they can clear $0.05 CPMs. That is, if they're lucky, they get five cents for every 1,000 views. If they're lucky.

Furthermore, folks like Ray are blaming the sites, which tend to be platforms or conduits for sharing, rather than the hosts or the actual people responsible for uploading the works. Either they don't understand this or they don't care, but they really seem to want to blame the middleman for the actions of end users.

Steve Rennie tried to talk Ray down a few times, with little luck. Rennie, rightly, pointed out that whining about the pennies some Russian site might get is a really fruitless activity, when there's so much opportunity to make revenue elsewhere. Why not focus on the actual revenue opportunities, instead of whining about the two and a half cents some Russian site got?

And, of course, Ray's anger isn't just at Russian file sharing sites, but basically every legitimate site as well. Even if they pay, they don't pay him enough. He, of course, singled out YouTube and further demonstrated his near total ignorance of the world by insisting that YouTube has "forced 12,000 musicians out of work." You might wonder how that's possible, and read the link for the full "math" and try to hold back the guffaws. The short version, as far as I can figure it out, is that he argues that YouTube only pays artists 35% of the revenue they get, but they should be paying 70% "like Apple." And then:
So, if they had done the same percentage as say iTunes, 30/70 instead of 65/35, that's a difference of about $600 million. Now if you take a middle class musician, say, $50,000 year, year in and year out, divide it into $600 million, that's 12,000 people that Google has siphoned the money off.

And that's 12,000 people that are now working in the salt mines of Walmart.
There are so many things wrong with this that I'm afraid to even try to list them all. First of all, YouTube revenue is incremental revenue on top of other revenue. This is revenue that did not exist at all prior to YouTube setting up ContentID and monetizing those views. This is not money that was somehow taken away from artists. Second, the revenue is not evenly distributed as his simple "division" implies. Bigger artists get more views, so even if his other nonsensical argument about how Google should fork over more of the money made sense, the "missing" money would still go disproportionately to bigger artists anyway.

And, of course, there are so many other factors at play here, including a whole bunch of musicians who only have careers because of YouTube. The fact that this "logic" is even considered seriously is so bizarre.

Rennie pushed back on some of Ray's claims, and Ray just went on something of a rampage, comparing internet sites to companies that exploited child labor in the past. When Rennie suggested that YouTube and other internet services were providing new and incremental revenue streams that simply didn't exist before, Ray referred to Rennie as "massa," which is incredibly obnoxious. He later insisted that "pirate sites are on the payroll of multinational companies," and then said that the internet companies were "pimps" and that "iTunes pays their 'girls' 70%, but Google only pays 30%." The fact that these companies created brand new revenue streams for him never seems to even enter his consciousness.

Finally, when people pointed out that there are a growing number of artists who are successful primarily because of the internet and new business models and services, he mocked those success stories, arguing that they got lucky -- saying that it's "just like a casino." Apparently, he's unfamiliar with the old recording industry which was much more of a pure lottery, where most people never were even allowed in the door, and ended up making nothing at all.

Oh, and poor Kristin barely got to speak at all, despite actually being the one with lots of actual data to share, rather than angry, ill-informed, misguided rantings. Later in the day I got to speak to Dave Allen, who we've written about before, and who was a founding member of Gang of Four -- a contemporary of the Dead Kennedys -- and he made a key point. Whenever the conversation focuses on "but what do we do about piracy," it becomes a complete waste of time. There are so many amazing new opportunities out there, with all sorts of fantastic ways to create, promote, connect, distribute, and monetize music. Whining about "losses" is just time spent not seizing opportunities.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 12:36pm

    Don't need to boycott Dead Kennedys because they suck anyway.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Milton Freewater, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 3:55pm

      Re:

      "Don't need to boycott Dead Kennedys because they suck anyway."

      How dare you. Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables is one of the decade's greatest records.

      If East Bay completely missed the irony in Kill the Poor, that only means the record is smarter than he is, which is probably why it's made itself available for sharing.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      g, Jul 5th, 2013 @ 12:47pm

      Re:

      theyre fucking awesome!!!

       

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

  •  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 12:43pm

    Who the hell are the Dead Kennedys anyway?

    And how are Dead people making music?

    ...

    AHHH!

    ZOMBIES!

    KILL IT WITH FIRE!

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 3:00am

      Re:

      No, it's not his body that is dead. It's the part of his brain that was creative, vibrant and proactive. Since it's now dead he wants to receive money for doing nothing.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      No, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 3:48am

      Re:

      If you don't know who the Dead Kennedys are you probably need to turn off your radio now.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        PaulT (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 4:08am

        Re: Re:

        He needs to turn off his radio in 2013 because he doesn't know who a punk band who haven't released an album since 1986 are? That's a strange assertion.

        For the record, I'm only vaguely aware of them. I know the track Holiday In Cambodia and remember them being name checked in some of Stephen King's work, but that's about it. I never particularly cared for punk, so never bothered to check them out. Sorry if your favourite band means nothing to me. I'd check them out on YouTube to see if I like any of their other stuff, but for some reason I don't fancy giving them the ad revenue right now...

         

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

      •  
        icon
        silverscarcat (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 5:58am

        Re: Re:

        According to Paul T, they haven't released a record since 1986.

        I was 4 years old then.

         

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

  •  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 12:48pm

    Pure asshole

    I'm tired of self respect - (ok you lost it)
    I can't afford a car
    I wanna be a prefab superstar

    I wanna be a tool - (So tool you are)
    Don't need no soul - (You sold it long ago)
    Wanna make big money - (But you suck.)
    Playing rock and roll

    I'll make my music boring - (Achieved)
    I'll play my music slow
    I ain't no artist, I'm a business man - (A poor one)
    No ideas of my own - (Just stolen from others)

    I won't offend
    Or rock the boat
    Just sex and drugs
    And rock and roll

    Drool, drool, drool, drool, drool, drool
    My Payola!
    Drool, drool, drool, drool, drool, drool
    My Payola!

    You'll pay ten bucks to see me - (No! I wont)
    On a fifteen foot high stage
    Fatass bouncers kick the shit
    Out of kids who try to dance

    If my friends say
    I've lost my guts
    I'll laugh and say
    That's rock and roll


    This guy is a complete loser. He was back then, and he is even more so now.

    Big tough Punk guy bending over for the "man" now.
    Sellout

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:44pm

      Re: Pure asshole

      I've met some punk guys in my day. Usually the ones that aren't complete sell-outs are the ones that suck.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Jesse Townley (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 11:39am

      Re: Pure asshole

      Actually, those lyrics were written by one of the DKs drummers (Bruce/Ted) and their original, iconic singer, Jello Biafra.

      East Bay Ray is the original guitarist.

      The band reformed without Jello Biafra in 1999 or 2000 and have been playing live with a series of replacement singers ever since. There was a nasty, extended legal fight between Jello and the other 3 key members of the DKs that involved my day job, Alternative Tentacles Records, which is owned & operated by Jello. (I don't want to get into the details of that nightmare- there's all kinds of info on-line and I've been having this conversation for the past decade, ha ha ha)

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 12:55pm

    "pirate sites are on the payroll of multinational companies"

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    Just... wow.

    If that doesn't show how completely clueless this guys is, nothing would.

    I'd like to have an oppurtunity to sell Ray a bridge along with some prime development swampland in Florida that it sits on for a low low price of a few million dollars - that he can make back by helping my brother-in-law, a Nigerian prince, move some money out of the country.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 12:56pm

    "And that's 12,000 people that are now working in the salt mines of Walmart."

    So that is 12,000 people that sucked and were unable to be successful with their talent and instead expected the world to pay them forever because they recorded a song once.

    So the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers, I think the second thing might be to kill all the artists.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Atkray (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 1:41pm

      Re:

      IANAL but there are a couple that I think are salvageable as humans, not so with the artists. Or are you just thinking we'll wipe the slate clean and start growing new ones?

       

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

      •  
        icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:01pm

        Re: Re:

        Pretty sure if we off some of the really bad lawyers the rest might decide to be human again.

        As with the "Artists", I think we can see how the devolve. Once they stop making things, demanding to still be important, yelling at clouds, yelling at kids on the lawn we should put them on an ice flow and set them adrift.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:18pm

        Re: Re:

        acceptable losses

         

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

  •  
    icon
    Coogan (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 1:03pm

    He later insisted that "pirate sites are on the payroll of multinational companies,"

    Multinational companies like Sony Music? Universal? Warner Music? EMI?

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 1:09pm

      Re:

      Oh I sincerely HOPE SO! Then we can go for RICO charges. Ahh, one can dream...

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 10:59pm

        Re: Re:

        more like these 50 corporations...

        http://thetrichordist.com/2013/01/28/over-50-major-brands-supporting-music-piracy-its-big-busine ss/

        or these...

        http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/20130215usc#QEwUqV_Usqt5CPfDlYRdww


        Again, and I say this with the utmost sincerity, publishing those lists while knowing nothing about the internet advertising world is a really, really big mistake. The claim that "it's a big business" is laughable. Those ads are on those sites because those companies buy up some of the *cheapest* inventory imaginable for remnant advertising. Those ads don't make so little money that Ray himself would probably be insulted. If he thinks Google pays out too little on YouTube, imagine how he'd feel when he found out that ad networks like that often pay a penny per one thousand views. And the rates keep going DOWN. With programmatic buying the "in" thing now, those companies automatically get their ads inserted into the *cheapest* slots available. Sometimes it's less than a penny per 1000 views.

        Display ads just don't make that much money.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 7:45am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Sometimes it's less than a penny per 1000 views."

          I get the impression you actually think you're convincing people with this "piracy doesn't pay" nonsense.

          If it didn't pay, there wouldn't be so many sites doing it. Seriously, duh.

          http://www.zdnet.com/blog/seo/make-money-online-by-selling-pirated-content-these-sites-do/36 60

           

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

          •  
            icon
            silverscarcat (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 7:54am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "I get the impression you actually think you're convincing people with this "piracy doesn't pay" nonsense.

            If it didn't pay, there wouldn't be so many sites doing it. Seriously, duh."

            One could argue that fanfiction and fanart are forms of piracy, as people use IP of others without paying them a penny.

            And if that's the case, why are there so many fanfiction and fanart sites out there with people not making much (if anything) off of it? Seriously, duh.

             

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

          •  
            icon
            Lowestofthekeys (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 8:01am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Easy money?

            http://www.kitguru.net/channel/jon-martindale/google-adsense-banned-author-for-pirate-bay- link/

            Google doesn't seem to think so.

            They banned this guy's ad sense account for having ad son his website next to links to The Pirate Bay.

             

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

          •  
            icon
            PaulT (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 8:11am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You'd have some sort of a point if you could read your own damn links. The (out-of-date) article you posted has nothing to do with Google ads. They're talking about subscription services and link sharing. Not only can't you link to primary evidence (seriously you always complain about Mike stating his opinion - with citations for his evidence - then "refute" him with... someone else's - often uncited - opinion!), but the "evidence" you link to doesn't even say what you think it's saying. Genius! Try reading past the headline next time you post whatever you think you found, it will make you look less moronic.

            Well, at least we know that your paranoid rantings aren't based on real evidence, only what you imagine you've read...

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 8:29am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              You either have a reading comprehension problem or you didn't read the full article. But you do get an A+ in the "douchey behavior" category.
              So you've got that going for you. Which is nice.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 8:51am

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

                You're not very perceptive, are you?

                Quote from the article -

                "The specific monetization methods for each service/site differ"

                This guy provides no evidence other than an anecdotal nod to someone who makes $3,000 a month off of a link sharing site.

                It's also been pointed out that people have to click-through on the ad to make any kind of money. I find it hard to imagine that if you're going to a link-sharing site, you're going to click an ad in lieu of a torrent link.

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                PaulT (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 10:42am

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

                CTRL+F Adsense - nothing
                CTRL+F Google - nothing, apart from some comments telling people to google things.
                CTRL+F ads - two mentions which cite nothing and make the type of bare assertion you're so fond of, but don't even specify the type of ad, let alone prove anything you were saying.

                I might have missed something due to the atrocious layout of that article, but otherwise it's not talking about the same thing you are. At best, it makes a couple of passing claims that don't mean anything more than "some sites make money from ads". Do you have any data, primary sources, anything other than someone claiming something you like with nothing to back it up? Hell, some of the sites it's talking about don't even exist any more - do you have current data, not just claims about what might have happened 2 years ago?

                Please feel free to paste the relevant sentences I missed below, or the data that article was based on, but most of the article is indeed irrelevant to what you were asserting. Or, is backing up your own claims with anything beyond half-assed links to uncited opinion pieces beyond you?

                 

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

  •  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 1:08pm

    "Oh, and poor Kristin barely got to speak at all,"

    If that had been myself there (not that I claim to be any sort of professional in the creative world) I would have walked out if all that's happening is the rantings of a wilfully blind man. I would have grabbed him by the shoulders, pointed him towards the wall, said "There, rant at that for a few hours", then walked off where I could at least use my time productively.

     

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

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 7:46pm

      Re:

      oh lord, there is no place more willfully blind than techdirt, except google... go figure.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 8:18am

      Re:

      I would have walked out if all that's happening is the rantings of a wilfully blind man.

      Some people probably stayed out of courtesy to the panel and audience, others maybe for the same reason people gather to look at a train wreck. ;-)

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 1:12pm

    these people who know the least about the likes of ad networks and youtube are the very people the entertainment industries and the like focus on to get backing for their stupid outpourings. when as misguided as this, it is an easy task to get them into the fold

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 1:15pm

    East Bay Ray should be admonished for not referring to his master in the proper way he should have said "yessa massa" not "massa", also if he is a hooker he should be more careful about what he says about his pimp, or end up with a mouth remodeling for free.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Shadow Dragon (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 1:29pm

    What do you expect

    What do you expect from a has-been.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Valkor (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:04pm

      Re: What do you expect

      This is what happens when Punk rockers fail to live fast and die young.
      It's tough when your only cache is being young and edgy. It's hard to stay edgy when you've been a music idol for decades, and no one stays young.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      gorehound (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:17pm

      Re: What do you expect

      East Bay Ray is a Sell-Out Artist.I still play in Punk Bands and still have the same views pretty much I had when I went to my first Punk Rock Show the summer of 1976.I am the lead singer/founder of Maine's oldest punk band "Big Meat Hammer" .

      Yes, it is true that less and less people Support Harder Punk Rock but I still won't change.I was already hating Big Labels by 1975 and I did mostly listen to 60's Garage, Obscure Hard Rock/Psych Stuff, and then along had come The Stooges,MC5 and Blue Cheer.By 75 I was so hating all Big Labels and so Hating the US Government.
      Well, I still hate Big Labels and I still hate the US Government.I still am willing to freely share the music too.
      www.bigmeathammer.com Feel Free to download and to freely use/share my weird Art.I also seed on TPB but not all day long.
      Yup, Jordan Kratz may in fact be a Has-Been but he still has his dignity and still is a Punk Rockin kind of Miscontent !!!

       

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

  •  
    icon
    radarmonkey (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 1:56pm

    East Bay Ray's Mathematics

    His calculations getting 12,000 victims are so far off, he should have gotten a 'divide by cucumber' error, all because he forgot to account for flightless waterfowl.

     

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 1:57pm

    Mike Masnick just hates it when Google's exploitive profit spigot is threatened.

    He's pretty obvious about it, too.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Chris ODonnell (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 1:59pm

    The guy sounds like your garden variety conspiracy theorist. Whoever booked him for this event is either a complete failure, or an evil genius.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:06pm

    Can you say...

    GET OFF MY LAWN!

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:13pm

    Aha.

    All yesterday during that panel, I kept saying that Ray reminded me of someone else... and I finally got it...

    Harlan Ellison. "Just pay me!"

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110915/16440415972/harlan-ellison-sues-again-because-no-one-c ould-have-possibly-came-up-with-same-scifi-ideas-as-he-did.shtml

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:20pm

    internet display ads pay next to nothing

    Yeah right, that's why 96% of Google's profits come from selling ads...

    http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/29/google-advertising/

    I'm not really sure why Masnick is spinning such blatant lies recently; in the past he's been far sneaker with his intellectual dishonesty. The heat is obviously coming down on the piracy biz, so that would seem to be the reason... Nobody loves piracy more than Mike Masnick and his blind sycophants here at Techdirt.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:25pm

      Re:

      Anonymous Cowards love [sharing] so I assume you do too.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:32pm

      Re:

      "internet display ads pay next to nothing"

      To the website of course, you moron. The share that Google gets is obviously a higher amount.

       

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:36pm

        Re: Re:

        The point is how much does Google make off of selling ads that are in some way connected to piracy attempts.

        I know you're bitter about the golden age of piracy being long gone, but I'd suggest you look in the mirror when thinking about who the moron truly is.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          ChrisB (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:44pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          When the "golden age of piracy" is gone, we'll have a lot more to worry about because the internet will be broken. You will never stop piracy without massive government surveillance.

          Sharing media has always been here. The internet just allows you to monitor it and freak out. Nothing has changed.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:46pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          It's easier, safer and faster than ever to access copyrighted material and you say the golden age is over?

          Seriously, I'd make a bet that we haven't seen anything yet.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Rikuo (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:52pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "I know you're bitter about the golden age of piracy being long gone,"

          If the golden is long gone, then how come its now easier than ever to do so? BTW, I'm also a paying customer. Do I have to link to my Steam account...again?

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 3:51pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You must not have been around during the Napster or Grokster days. It's nowhere near as easy (or cheap) as it was then.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Rikuo (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 4:02pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I didn't have a net connection back then, no...but it is easier today. Today, all I have to do to pirate is go to TPB and load up a torrent, and download all the files for a game, whereas back then, I would have had to get each file individually. Or I can simply swap a multi-terabyte hard drive with a friend. Back then, 40GB was huge.

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Milton Freewater, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 4:06pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "You must not have been around during the Napster or Grokster days."

              I agree ... 1998-2002 was the Golden Age of "piracy." The stuff you could find on Napster was amazing. We take that kind of access for granted now.

              Right now is the Golden Age of streaming.

              We have never and will never see the Golden Age of "pay what the rightsholder demands when they demand it."

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 5:56am

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

                Although if the RIAA and our AC supporters got their way, we may see the "golden age of copyright terrorism".

                 

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 5:00pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              You are correct, it is nowhere near as easy(or cheap) is easier and cheaper today than it was then, and yet I don't even bother to rip music or videos anymore, the "entertainment industry" is not even "entertaining" anymore LoL

               

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

            •  
              icon
              Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 7:01am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              You must not have been around during the Napster or Grokster days. It's nowhere near as easy (or cheap) as it was then.

              I was around for those, and am happy to compare the two.

              Then: search for single track on Napster/Grokster/Kazaa, get connected to someone on AOL dial-up, wait hours to get track
              Now: search for artist+torrent+discography on Google, get torrent file, have entire catalog of their work in minutes

               

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

              •  
                icon
                PaulT (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 8:04am

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

                Correction:

                Then: search for single track on Napster/Grokster/Kazaa, get connected to someone on AOL dial-up, wait hours to get track. Find out track is shitty quality, or mislabelled so it's not even the track you're looking for or maybe even a virus. Try again because there's no preview option or any legal way to obtain the track digitally because Apple haven't dragged the labels kicking and screaming into the marketplace yet.

                Now: search for artist+torrent+discography on Google, get torrent file, have entire catalog of their work in minutes, safe and secure in the knowledge that the community have already confirmed it's real and of the desired quality, even if the labels have decided to stop iTunes/Spotify/etc. from carrying the track.

                Funny story: I used to download a lot of free (legal!) music from mp3.com, and I had no qualms about sharing my music folder on Napster. One of artists I discovered was an instrumental electronic artist (deep house, I think?) named Shakera. I was puzzled when I noticed that lots of people were suddenly downloading their tracks from me. I soon discovered that it was due to a new pop artist who'd become popular in the US named Shakira and giggled silently to myself every time a download was completed, knowing that those fans who couldn't even spell her name were in for a surprise when they tried playing what they'd downloaded...

                 

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

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 3:52pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The point is how much does Google make off of selling ads that are in some way connected to piracy attempts.

          If you knew anything about anything, you'd know that it's close to nothing.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 7:52pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Really? Seems like Google is making $30b a year... yeah, that's nuthin'...

             

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

            •  
              icon
              JMT (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 11:24pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              So how much of that is from "piracy sites"? You seem to think you know more about this than anyone else here so what's the number? Make sure you provide citations.

               

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

            •  
              icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 11:32pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Really? Seems like Google is making $30b a year... yeah, that's nuthin'...


              I didn't say $30 billion is nothing. I said the amount of that $30 billion that comes from anything connected to piracy.

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 7:11am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              So what?

              Warner Bros made 2 billion dollars I guess it all came from drug traffic, you do know they caught Warner Bros trucks transporting drugs right?

              Your hyperbole is tiresome.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 7:14am

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

                He has personal vendetta against Mike and the Internet because of his failure as a musician. The thing is, everything he's writing here, it stays here, and the time will come when it comes back to bite him in his ass.

                 

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

            •  
              icon
              Gwiz (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 7:25am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Really? Seems like Google is making $30b a year... yeah, that's nuthin'...


              Um. That 30 billion is Google's revenue you know, not profits.

              You need to factor in Google's cost for bandwidth, electricity, taxes, payroll, overhead, etc. into that equation.

              It's like saying your being greedy because you made $200,000 in revenue from your album without me factoring in studio costs, engineering costs, production costs or the session musician's pay into it.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                PaulT (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 8:02am

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

                Bear in mind you are dealing with the same morons who think that Google's not paying for its bandwidth. I wouldn't be surprised if they assume that all their other costs are zero as well.

                 

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

        •  
          identicon
          Milton Freewater, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 4:07pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "I'd suggest you look in the mirror when thinking about who the moron truly is."

          Oh, we all do. And we wonder, why do we keep responding to him on TechDirt?

          But here we go again.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 5:05pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          If the golden age of piracy is gone so is the eye balls for the piracy content no?

          Or are you saying that pirates do searches but don't pirate anything?

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 5:22pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          If the golden age is gone then there's no need for more laws trying to stop it, jackass.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Matthew Cline (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 5:39pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The point is how much does Google make off of selling ads that are in some way connected to piracy attempts.
          Okay, then, how much? Do you have any estimates?

           

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

        •  
          icon
          techflaws (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 10:27pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I know you're bitter about the golden age of piracy being long gone

          [citation needed]

           

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

        •  
          icon
          silverscarcat (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 6:02am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "I know you're bitter about the golden age of piracy being long gone, but I'd suggest you look in the mirror when thinking about who the moron truly is."

          It's been gone for hundreds of years now. Only recently has it come back over by Africa where people hijack boats and such.

           

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

    •  
      icon
      Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:53pm

      Re:

      That's a pretty decent attempt at trolling...

      7 out of 10

      Misplaced sarcasm - Check
      Link to something irrelevant to what the actual article is discussing - Check
      Google hatred - Check
      Ad Homs against the author - Check, Check, Check, and Check
      Buzzword: Sycophants - Check with a bonus point for bringing it back from last years graveyard

      Needs more Big Search and a little more hate against the rest of the techdirt community. Most of us unwashed heathens don't even know what a sycophant is... Also, more current buzzwords and throwing in 2 or 3 would be required to get a perfect score... Keep trying, though. You'll get there, tiger!

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 3:28pm

      Re:

      Yeah right, that's why 96% of Google's profits come from selling ads...

      *sigh*

      This is what I meant when I said it's amusing to see people who have no clue what they're talking about discuss internet advertising.

      Most of Google's ad revenue comes from *AdWords* which is its *SEARCH* advertising business, not the display business, and not AdSense, which is what appears on 3rd party sites. Search advertising pays really nicely, because when people search, the ads often show them what they're looking for, so they're likely to click. When people are browsing 3rd party sites, they don't give a shit about ads and have tremendous ad blindness.

      Furthermore, yes, Google does make some money from AdSense, but that's because it's *aggregating* millions of sites, most of which earn pennies per day, at best, and the vast, vast, vast majority (well over 99.9999%) have absolutely nothing to do with "piracy." The idea that Google makes money from piracy is so misinformed it really makes you look like a completely clueless person.

       

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 4:00pm

        Re: Re:

        Most of Google's ad revenue comes from *AdWords* which is its *SEARCH* advertising business,

        No shit, and all those tens of thousands of DMCA notices are to remove links in their SEARCH engine, asshole.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          n_mailer, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 4:17pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "No shit, and all those tens of thousands of DMCA notices are to remove links in their SEARCH engine, asshole."

          Different kind of search result, genius.

          Nothing hammers home a non sequitur like saying "asshole" after it.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 4:30pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            No. Google is an advertising company. 96% of their revenue is from ads. Adwords, Adsense, etc; whatever one you want to look at, Google needs eyeballs to survive, to sell its ADVERTISING. They make money when people search for illegal versions of content via site hits AND they make money off the ads on the pirate sites. If they didn't they wouldn't have the program. Those "pennies" add up to millions of dollars. It's all in their SEC financial disclosure statements.

            And Masnick is indeed an asshole. And a liar and a douchebag and tons of other nasty descriptives. That's because of HIS boneheaded behavior and poor choices in life, not mine.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 4:34pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              No. Google is an advertising company. 96% of their revenue is from ads. Adwords, Adsense, etc; whatever one you want to look at, Google needs eyeballs to survive, to sell its ADVERTISING.

              Google is not struggling for eyeballs. With or without infringement.

              They make money when people search for illegal versions of content via site hits AND they make money off the ads on the pirate sites.

              Bullshit. Seriously, present some proof or go the fuck away.

              It's all in their SEC financial disclosure statements.

              Go ahead, quote us where it shows that they make money from piracy.

              Your ignorance on this subject is flat out astounding.

              And Masnick is indeed an asshole.

              For what it's worth, the fact that I know what I'm talking about, and you are completely ignorant, does not make me an asshole.

              And a liar and a douchebag and tons of other nasty descriptives. That's because of HIS boneheaded behavior and poor choices in life, not mine.

              What behavior, pray tell, are you talking about? I am curious.

               

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

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                 
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 4:44pm

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

                Fuck you Masnick, you lying piece of shit. You haven't refuted a single thing I've said because you know you can't. You know goddamned well that the hits Google gets on their site determine what they can charge for advertising. ADS. 96% of the TENS of BILLIONS of dollars they pull in every year. You're pretending all those MILLIONS of links to infringing material don't net them eyeballs, and thus more ad revenue? You're a transparent and lying slimeball.

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 5:03pm

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

                  Are you saying that the majority of searchs done on Google or any other search engine is about piracy?

                  Seriously?
                  On the internet where the most searched word probably is "funny" followed by "cat".

                   

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 5:15pm

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

                  I think he is waiting for your crap to compost so he can make some use of it instead of refusing it outright and waste such good crap statements.

                   

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 5:24pm

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

                  Millions of links? Yeah, which is why HBO DMCAed their own HBO links to legitimate content.

                  If there are millions of such links why the fuck would there even be false positives?

                   

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 5:26pm

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

                  LMFAO

                  I can actually see you frothing at the mouth while you mash through keyboard after keyboard trying to get the post complete. AAARRRGGGHHH MASNIK!!!1!!

                   

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 5:56pm

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

                  Fuck you Masnick, you lying piece of shit.

                  I will note that you haven't responded to a single point I made, but have amped up the rhetoric.

                  You know goddamned well that the hits Google gets on their site determine what they can charge for advertising. ADS. 96% of the TENS of BILLIONS of dollars they pull in every year.

                  The hits do not determine what they can charge for advertising. The *clicks* on the ads do. Again, the question is what is being clicked on.

                  And, again, the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of that 96% has absolutely nothing to do with infringement. You really seem to not understand the very basics of internet advertising. Once again: those sites are making next to nothing. Google makes very, very little from those ads, because no one is clicking on them. I already explained all of this, and yet you seem to repeat your ignorance. It is odd.

                  You're pretending all those MILLIONS of links to infringing material don't net them eyeballs, and thus more ad revenue?

                  Eyeballs do not equal revenue when it comes to Google ads. Clicks net them revenue. Who is clicking on those ads? The ads that make money for Google are relevant to their searches. There aren't many relevant ads on searches for infringing material.

                  You're a transparent and lying slimeball.

                  You seem very angry for someone who is being taught something.

                   

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

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                     
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 6:33pm

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

                    And, again, the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of that 96% has absolutely nothing to do with infringement

                    Translation: yes, google makes some money off infringement.

                    Masnick is ok with that.

                    Stay classy, asshole.

                     

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

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 6:46pm

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

                      Translation:

                      I don't care if Google doesn't know, but they do make money from piracy and it doesn't matter the everybody else does too since piracy also drives sales of music and movies I don't care Google is the devil.

                       

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

                    •  
                      icon
                      Togashi (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 7:37pm

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

                      Yes, Greyhound makes some money off smuggling.

                      Yes, Smith and Wesson makes some money off murder.

                      Yes, trenchcoat manufacturers make some money off shoplifting.

                      Yes, casinos make some money off money laundering.

                      Yes, rope makers make some money off kidnapping.

                      Seeing a pattern here? You would be laughed out of town if you were to suggest that any of these manufacturers were dedicated to that purpose because of the pitiful amounts of money they make on it compared to the myriad of legitimate ones. Well, some people would argue about the guns, but the point stands.

                       

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

                    •  
                      icon
                      PaulT (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 1:27am

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

                      "Translation: yes, google makes some money off infringement.

                      Masnick is ok with that."

                      Yep, just as he's probably OK with AT&T making some money off harassment and the planning of crimes, FedEx making some money off the transport of illegal material, Ford and BP making some money off getaway driving and Smith & Wesson making some money from robbery and murder. Are you also going to attack those companies, or is your pathetic obsession only with Google and Mike?

                      Unless you can prove that they either directly encourage infringement or that it is a primary part of their business model, you're making an astoundingly idiotic argument.

                      "Stay classy, asshole."

                      That's the mirror, look at your screen.

                       

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

                •  
                  icon
                  techflaws (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 10:29pm

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

                  You're a transparent and lying slimeball.

                  Coming from a clueless jackass braniac like you, he can only take that as a compliment. Please continue.

                   

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

                •  
                  icon
                  btrussell (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 6:48am

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

                  Sticks and stones may break my bones

                  But a dicksfor on the net can't hurt me.

                   

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

            •  
              icon
              Matthew Cline (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 5:43pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              They make money when people search for illegal versions of content via site hits AND they make money off the ads on the pirate sites.
              So, what is Google supposed to do? Try to guess which searches are looking for pirate sites, and refuse to do those searches?

               

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

            •  
              icon
              Karl (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 7:32pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              They make money when people search for illegal versions of content via site hits

              This would only be true if the pirate sites themselves bought keywords for those search terms. They do not.

              AND they make money off the ads on the pirate sites.

              None of the "pirate site" have AdSense on them.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 7:55am

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

                Ask him to provide a list of pirate websites using Googles ad, because I just looked around and couldn't find any.

                Here is how I did it.

                - Go to pirate site.
                - Open a download page.
                - Open source code, look for ad services. (adsense, adword, doubleclick, Google, google, etc)

                So unless Google has hidden contracts and it is being paid directly by them which can't be tracked, I very much want to know where this info is coming from.

                 

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

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 4:30pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          No shit, and all those tens of thousands of DMCA notices are to remove links in their SEARCH engine, asshole.


          Um. That has nothing to do with what we're discussing. Really. If you want to talk intelligently about this, it might help to actually understand the basics. We're discussing the ads that appear on the pages on these sites.

          If you further would like to go on a tangent, unrelated to what we're discussing, and argue that Google is making money on adwords because people are searching for infringing works, you're making an argument even more ignorant than I had originally thought. If that were the case, it would be a *good* thing, because it would people are not clicking on the infringing links, but rather clicking on the advertisements. The "pirate sites" you complain about are not *buying* their own adwords.

           

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

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
             
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 4:35pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You are a sick sociopath. You ignore the facts because you're a paid shill for Google. You support and encourage the exploitation of artists as much as Google does.

            Karma is the most powerful force on earth and you are going to get exactly what you deserve for your behavior on this blog.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Rikuo (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 4:45pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              If you'd kindly show us Mike Masnick's payslip from Google, then I'd believe you. No? Then BULLSHIT.

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 5:07pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Pic or never happened.
              Pic or GTFO.

               

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

            •  
              icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 5:50pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              You are a sick sociopath

              I find it fascinating that by simply pointing out where you are clearly ignorant of some basic concepts, about which you are speaking, that somehow gives you the power to judge my psychological state over the internet. You truly are an impressive human being.

              You ignore the facts because you're a paid shill for Google. You support and encourage the exploitation of artists as much as Google does.

              This is untrue on multiple levels. I am not paid by Google. I am not a shill for Google. I regularly speak out against Google when it does things I think are incorrect or wrong. Just this week, I spoke out against the rumored news of it trying to influence payment processors. There are, of course, many times when I agree with Google as well. Is it so difficult to believe that I might actually hold the opinions I state (and which I've stated since even before Google existed)?

              Karma is the most powerful force on earth and you are going to get exactly what you deserve for your behavior on this blog.

              Okay.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 5:54pm

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

                You could try refuting what the guy wrote, Mike... instead of just insulting him and saying he's ignorant. Why are you having a difficult time doing that?

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 6:01pm

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

                  You could try refuting what the guy wrote, Mike... instead of just insulting him and saying he's ignorant. Why are you having a difficult time doing that?

                  I responded directly to what he said. What did I not respond to?

                   

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

                •  
                  icon
                  techflaws (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 10:31pm

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

                  Dude, are you that dense you can't even read?

                   

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

                •  
                  icon
                  JMT (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 11:37pm

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

                  WTF? Did you actually read any of the comments? Lots of insults hurled at Mike, while he clearly refutes all the nonsense claims and accusations. Try to keep up.

                   

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

                •  
                  icon
                  PaulT (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 1:17am

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

                  "You could try refuting what the guy wrote"

                  What he wrote was unsubstantiated personal accusations that have been refuted literally dozens of times in the past, yet he still repeats the same lies. Mike's actually very calm and civil considering he's being personally slandered.

                  "instead of just insulting him and saying he's ignorant"

                  Is it insulting if he's just stating a clearly apparent fact?

                  "Why are you having a difficult time doing that?"

                  Really? He responded to a post that opened with him being called a "sick sociopath" and you question why he's not responding with honey and candy?

                   

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 8:26pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Yeah, just like how hurricane head up his ass insists that all the sleeping giant artist friends are going to rally against Techdirt.

              They've been sleeping for what, months since Lowery decided to throw at tantrum at everyone who doesn't lick his shoes? Colour me not convinced, and not impressed.

               

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 9:25pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Oh look, it's Karl, the guy notorious for not getting *anything* right. This should be fun...

            This would only be true if the pirate sites themselves bought keywords for those search terms. They do not.

            No. Adwords is not the only way Google monetizes site hits. Pure traffic is a huge component of how Google determines what to charge for advertising.There's no way you can play dumb and pretend that isn't the case.
            So are you going to suggest Google doesn't get millions of hits every day from people looking to infringe? Have fun in that fantasy world.

            None of the "pirate site" have AdSense on them.

            How many of them have DoubleClick, Karl? Hmm?

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Karl (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 5:47am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Pure traffic is a huge component of how Google determines what to charge for advertising.

              Advertising what, exactly? When people search for something like "dark knight torrent," there are no AdWords at all, and the original poster was talking about AdWords.

              Moreover, Google doesn't charge by page views, but by "impressions" - that is, clickthroughs.

              How many of them have DoubleClick, Karl? Hmm?

              How much money does Google make off of DoubleClick when they do? Zero.

              DoubleClick is a platform, used by more than just Google. When it's not used by Google, Google retains zero of the income generated from it. In their own words:
              In addition to sites that participate in our network, millions of advertisers and publishers use our DoubleClick technology to manage their digital advertising, not just on our network but across the whole web. Advertisers and publishers ultimately decide how to use this technology and we cannot "see" where all these ads appear (nor do we have a revenue share).

              They released that statement because of the utterly incompetent research of "Annenberg Innovation Lab," a.k.a. Jonathan Talpin - one of the many, many reasons you should not listen to anything Talpin says.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 8:00am

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

                Uh, what? DoubleClick isn't freeware, Karl, lol. Google uses DoubleClick as a laundering tool; to provide a layer between itself and DoubleClick's myriad nefarious uses, which are legion:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoubleClick

                More fuel on the fire for the argument that Google is very evil indeed, despite their Goebbels-esque preemptive propaganda campaign.

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Lowestofthekeys (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 8:08am

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

                  "Uh, what? DoubleClick isn't freeware, Karl, lol."

                  Incredibly nonsensical. I'm not entirely sure where Karl said it was "freeware" and a "laundering tool"? They don't make any money from it, unless you can provide proof that they're funneling money into it.

                  "More fuel on the fire for the argument that Google is very evil indeed, despite their Goebbels-esque preemptive propaganda campaign."

                  Your logic is astounding. A business...making money...is EVIL.

                   

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 8:50am

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

                    DoubleClick is a nefarious ad tool. Yes, it is. Google owns that business. It isn't freeware, they make money from it. Which part do you not understand? Or are you completely dense?

                     

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

                    •  
                      icon
                      Lowestofthekeys (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 8:54am

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

                      So you're whining because they make money off the sale of the software?

                      That's like saying the people who make rubbing alcohol are criminals because rubbing alcohol can be used to make meth.

                       

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

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 9:06am

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

                        No, it isn't like that at all. You are indeed dense.

                         

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

                        •  
                          icon
                          Lowestofthekeys (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 9:10am

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

                          Wow, what an intelligent retort...no wonder you get your information from David Lowery.

                           

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

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 9:56am

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

                          Care to explain how it is done then? With citations please, otherwise you're just making things up.

                          If someone creates a filesharing site using ASP.Net and hosts it on a box running IIS/SQL/Windows Server 2012, does that mean you can go after Microsoft because the "pirate" BOUGHT that software, used it for a different purpose than you or Microsoft would like, but is within their right? Um, no.

                          Google ACQUIRED DoubleClick, didn't spin-off the company. DoubleClick is a company, not a technology or product. They make products, which people buy a license to use, using it however they like.

                          http://www.adopsinsider.com/ad-serving/how-does-ad-serving-work/

                           

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

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 11:36am

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

                      How it is nefarious when it doesn't do the actual infringement?

                      The people who use those tools may engage in dubious relationships with some dubious partners, but how is that a problem of the tool maker?

                      Are knife makers responsible for the crimes people commit with those?

                      Do you want to start eating with chopsticks?
                      That is how it started in Asia, rulers didn't trust people with knifes and so it was forbidden since it could be used as weapons is that type of paranoia that you are engaging in?

                       

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Karl (profile), Feb 22nd, 2013 @ 12:16am

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

                  Uh, what? DoubleClick isn't freeware, Karl, lol. Google uses DoubleClick as a laundering tool; to provide a layer between itself and DoubleClick's myriad nefarious uses, which are legion:

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoubleClick

                  More fuel on the fire for the argument that Google is very evil indeed, despite their Goebbels-esque preemptive propaganda campaign.


                  Okay, so let me get this straight.

                  Google sells a service. Once they sell that service, they don'ts know how people use that service, have no ability to control it, don't even know how others are using it, and don't profit from its use.

                  A vanishingly small amount of those third-party entities use their service to sell ads to "pirate sites" (or other illicit sites). None of which pays Google one dime.

                  Of that vanishingly small amount of third-party clients, a small minority of those third-party sales are to to "pirate sites;" the rest of the ads appear on perfectly legal sites.

                  Plus, those "pirate sites" are, themselves, only third-party providers of services to users, all of whom have DMCA contacts, and show no indications that they haven't followed the law. In other words, they are not engaging in "piracy," but providing the infrastructure that makes all file sharing ("piracy" or not) possible.

                  Still, none of the income from those sites makes its way to Google.

                  Yet, according to you, DoubleClick is somehow "notorious," DoubleClick is "a laundering tool," and everything that Google says is a "Goebbels-esque preemptive propaganda campaign."

                  Yeah, OK, then. You might want to upgrade your tinfoil hat. You can get a good price on one, if you look around on Goog... whoops, never mind.

                   

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 7:42am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/1704424?hl=en

              Well lets see:

              - Kickasstorrents have none of Google ads options in its source code, in fact I didn't find and ad server at all.

              - The Pirate Bay. Nope no adsense, adword there also in the source code of the page.

              So after looking into the page source code of 2 of the biggest pirate websites around and not finding any ads on it, do you care to show some actual evidence of your BS statements?

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 7:48am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoubleClick

              DoubleClick appears to be a product to create and deliver ads, like a text editor create and delivers text, is not tied to Google directly unless you use their own set of Google DoubleClick services.

              So please show your evidence of GTFO.

               

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

    •  
      identicon
      n_mailer, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 4:15pm

      Re:

      Speaking of intellectual dishonesty and lying, how do you think you can get away with inaccurately quoting Mike on the thread of the post itself?

      Here si Mike's full quote:

      "Let's make this simple: internet display ads pay next to nothing -- especially on sites like the one that Ray was complaining about. Those kinds of sites can only get deals with complete bottom of the barrel remnant ad providers, whose payout numbers are so small that most people would laugh"

      Your VentureBeat article supports Mike. Look at where their revenue comes from.

      This is why I am pro-piracy. It's not the "free stuff" ... it's not Chris Dodd, who is only doing his job ... it's people like you. Whatever your'e for, I;'m against.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      anonymouse, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 4:18pm

      Re:

      This is the reason there is a problem Mike will say something then some retard will tr to blow his thoughts out of the water, I want to see you start a business and then to give 70% of your income to people who make a few sounds and sing along, and don't do it really well. YouTube has lowered the cost of music to 0 yes 0. people can listen to virtually any music track they want whenever they want, they can download a track if they find it enjoyable to listen to on their other devices, all because of the infrastructure that YouTube and Google have created. Artists have a means to another income stream even though it is not much for anyone not being viewed a few hundred thousand time, but guess what if you create a really good YouTube Video , even one that is poor quality and poorly made you can still make a lot of money. Money you would not have made otherwise. This is a new business model and artists can refuse to play along , they can remove their content from YouTube if they want, Google will even help you set up a filter to prevent anyone uploading your music , but then you lose a revenue stream, you lose any money, even if it is only a few thousand buck a month?year. So yeah knock Mike for praising YouTube for creating a new revenue stream for people that refuse to buy music. Mock YouTube as much as you like but they are part of the future, while you sit in your basement on a computer making nothing.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      weneedhelp - not signed in, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 4:52pm

      Re:

      Ha ha ha ha. Do you guys even read the links you provide?

      "in the past he's been far sneaker" - Were they Nike's or Adidas?

      http://www.wordstream.com/articles/google-earnings

      1/10

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 5:14pm

      Re:

      Do you even read the link you posted?

      Quote:
      We decided to conduct our own Google earnings report and discover what are the top 10 industries contributing to Google's earnings.

      1 - Finance & Insurance – $4.0 Billion
      2 - Retailers & General Merchandise – $2.8 Billion
      3 - Travel & Tourism – $2.4 Billion
      4 - Jobs & Education – $2.2 Billion
      5 - Home & Garden— $2.1 Billion
      6 - Computer & Consumer Electronics – $2.0 Billion
      7 - Vehicles – $2.0 Billion
      8 - Internet & Telecommunications – $1.7 Billion
      9 - Business & Industrial – $1.6 Billion
      10 - Occasions & Gifts – $1.2 Billion


      I see people are pirating financial services, travel destinations, home and garden utensils, electronics LoL

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 7:48pm

      Re:

      pretty much, yup.

      Yeah right, that's why 96% of Google's profits come from selling ads...

      http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/29/google-advertising/

      I'm not really sure why Masnick is spinning such blatant lies recently; in the past he's been far sneaker with his intellectual dishonesty. The heat is obviously coming down on the piracy biz, so that would seem to be the reason... Nobody loves piracy more than Mike Masnick and his blind sycophants here at Techdirt.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        techflaws (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 10:43pm

        Re: Re:

        Morons, ueber alles
        Morons, ueber alles...

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 6:08am

        Re: Re:

        BTW, this has made me wonder...

        What's a sycophant?

         

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

        •  
          icon
          The Groove Tiger (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 7:43am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I think it's like an ancient priest.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          art guerrilla (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 12:18pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          sycophant ? ? ?

          that's when the little bastards flash-mob your pump controller or AC switches and literally gum them up, then you are -wait for it-

          sick of ants...

          i *think* that's what it is about...

          seriously, those little bastards seem to like ozone, and down here in la florida, they will *cover* a switch like that inside and out, 100 ants deep until they clog up the contacts with their deep-fried, chitinous little ant bodies...

          based on a true story...

          art guerrilla
          aka ann archy
          eof

           

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

      •  
        icon
        Gwiz (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 7:37am

        Re: Re:

        eah right, that's why 96% of Google's profits come from selling ads...

        http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/29/google-advertising/



        Read your own link. That's not profit, it's revenue.

        Google probably pays more in bandwidth, electricity and taxes for one day than you will make in your lifetime.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Duncan, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 10:43pm

        Re: Re:

        I SWEAR that this guy is that Dead Kennedy bloke. Or else a huge fan. Something definitely blew wind up his fanny.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:30pm

    Btw, YouTube/Google take 85% of the ad revenue from uploaded songs. So Ray is 100% correct; compared to Apple, Google is screwing the musicians hands down.

    And if Mike Masnick really thought there were better business models out there, he wouldn't be so scared silly of crackdowns on piracy, would he? Fact.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:36pm

      Re:

      Mike is scared of the crackdowns on piracy because without fail...well they fail, and cause colossal amounts of collateral damage, in terms of damage to the concept of a free and open internet, and to free speech in general. How many times has Techdirt covered stories of DMCA takedowns, and how many times have those takedowns had links to legal content, and yet, according to the rules, that legal content has to come down?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:40pm

        Re: Re:

        They don't do anything of the sort.

        So I suppose you'll now pull out some TD article links to some overblown outliers and expect everyone to believe that they are the universal norm.

        It won't work.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Atkray (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:47pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          In the face of the evidence you have provided I'd be surprised if he even replies much less links to the dozens of article that you already are familiar with.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Rikuo (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:50pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Precisely. Not gonna bother with the effort of pulling up actual links. All this guy has to do is put in DMCA in the search box up above, and he'll get all the links he needs.

             

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

        •  
          icon
          Rikuo (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 2:49pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Okay, so when Techdirt reported on a DMCA takedown from an agent authorized to represent HBO and in the notice were links to HBO.com...that was a complete fabrication?

          On the other hand, those on the other side of the fence I have myself caught telling pure lies. I remember one copyright maximilist website, Ethical Fan, saying that Kim DotCom was involved with a site that let you watch half of a movie, then charged for the rest...even though the website was still up long after the rest of his Mega network of sites had been shut down.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Rikuo (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 3:04pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Oh and in case you wanna reply, I'm busy watching the PS4 Live Announcement event, so don't be worried when I don't feel like replying.

             

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 7:49pm

        Re: Re:

        nah... just follow the money.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      crade (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 3:36pm

      Re:

      Itunes is nothing like youtube. The comparison makes no sense, it's radio vs. CD sales.
      Even if you ignore the fact that they are unrelated, the argument would work as easily to say iTunes is simply giving too much. It's completely ridiculous and hilarious.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 3:51pm

      Re:

      Btw, YouTube/Google take 85% of the ad revenue from uploaded songs.

      Citation please.

      And if Mike Masnick really thought there were better business models out there, he wouldn't be so scared silly of crackdowns on piracy, would he? Fact.

      You still don't think that maybe, just maybe, I'm concerned about collateral damage and the simple fact that cracking down on these sites DOESN'T HELP?

      Nah, couldn't be that I'm dealing in reality, could it?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 7:51pm

        Re: Re:

        what collateral damage? seriously? this doesn't even take legislation... Looks like Taplin at USC is moving the needle and the issue is getting mainstream attention.

        http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/02/entertainment/la-et-ct-piracy-ads-20130102

         

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

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 1:12am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "what collateral damage?"

          Do you people just selectively forget every argument that doesn't fit your preconceived notions, or are you just so single-minded that you don't even notice the arguments put forward every single time this issue is discussed?

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 7:37am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            A man was falsely accused of rape; ergo, rape laws should not be enforced.

            That's the logic you're espousing. That's why no one takes you seriously.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Lowestofthekeys (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 7:43am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Actually rape laws should be refined if people are falsely accused.

              The same should be done with the DMCA to avoid collateral damage.

              It's pretty astounding you're willing to accept a law that can be abused so easily with little to no consequence.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 8:06am

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

                "Actually rape laws should be refined if people are falsely accused. "

                How should rape laws be refined? Because there's no 'if' in that reality.

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Lowestofthekeys (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 8:09am

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

                  They have been before. They developed DNA testing to better identify assailants.

                  In a similar vein, the DMCA system can be developed to better identify copyrighted material.

                   

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 11:16am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              No dude, raping a monopoly is not like raping a human being.
              Just like killing a fly is not the same as killing a human being.

              Care to explain why you or anybody deserves a monopoly?

               

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 11:07am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Taplin the Disney mouthpiece?

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 9:48pm

      Re:

      If your crackdowns worked half the time and didn't have monumental levels of collateral damage maybe people would sympathise with you. Oh, wait - the RIAA helped you lose that battle.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 8:27am

      Re:

      Fact.

      I don't think that word means what you think it means...

       

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

  •  
    icon
    crade (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 3:26pm

    Holy crap, they are still around? wtf is wrong with the music industry? Those guys have been washed up for way too long. Who's been paying to prop them up all these years? The taxpayers?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    quawonk, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 3:42pm

    Typical entitled artist. Hasn't created anything since the 80's and still expects to get paid.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 3:49pm

      Re:

      You might have an argument if his music hadn't been consumed since the 80s. But it has. So you don't.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 7:01pm

        Re: Re:

        Consumed by whom?

        Levi's ads, Quentin Tarantino rape scene?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Kennedys

        Have you noticed that the most vocal about royalties are the ones that produce nothing and try to live from past glory without having to produce absolutely nothing new and see their paychecks diminish but can't possible assume responsability for it themselves and have to blame others because of falling revenues.

        "the world's greediest karaoke band."
        Jello Biafra

        Even the ex heart and soul of that band called them greedy bastards.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 8:11am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Don't you think it's hypocritical to call someone else greedy when you take music without paying?

          I mean c'mon. Nobody is fooled when you guys say this stuff. Nothin but eye rolls goin on.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 8:18am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Don't you think it's hypocritical to call someone else greedy when you take music without paying?"

            Yes, but I also think it's also dumb to generalize the entire community of a tech blog and assume they're all pirates.

             

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

          •  
            icon
            PaulT (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 8:18am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Don't you think it's hypocritical to call someone else greedy when you take music without paying?"

            Dunno, do you have any proof that he's taking peoples' music, or is that just the fantasy crutch of "everyone who disagrees with me must be a pirate!" you people depend on when you're proven wrong again? Lying about the very people you're talking to still doesn't work, sorry.

             

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

          •  
            icon
            silverscarcat (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 8:19am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Don't you think it's hypocritical to call someone else greedy when you take music without paying?"

            Not really, no.

            I can turn on the radio to listen to music and record it if I have the tools, therefore, I'm "taking" music without paying for it.

            I can call a person greedy when they really are greedy.

             

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 11:31am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            No, not really, I take music from the radio for free, I take music from VEVO for free, I take music from the internet in general for free, I take music from the TV for free, I take music for free all the fucking time and I sleep like a child at night.

            Is not me, who go up a stage and called everybody who paid a ticket to fucking see you play a thief.

            Is not me, that has act like a punk but don't want to live the life of a punk after the show is over, in my time people called those "posers".

            Is not me the idiot who failed to safeguard my future but saving for the lean times.

            Is not me who wants to enforce an obscene concept as a monopoly onto others while singing "fuck the man" and "screw you fans".

            C'mon who do you think you are fooling?

            You see, a decade ago I realized I should have some survival skills so even in the event of ending up with absolutely nothing I would be able to survive and have a comfortable life. I learned to make rope, weave, how to make tools, how to build walls, shelters and plant food, I even learned how to produce some simple medicines, so today I am not afraid of the future, because I got something better than money and that is knowledge. I don't need to bug others to respect "my precious" because "my precious" is mine and nobody can take it away from me, but I can share my precious knowledge with everyone.

            See, fools will be fools to the end and will die like fools.
            Nobody respect that type of person, nobody is willing to put up with that crap anymore, the golden age of music superstars has ended its cycle this time, maybe in the future there may be new ones but for now they are not that welcome anymore and are starting to stink like a fish out of the freezer after to long.

            The rebels of yesterday are the creeps of today and they didn't even realized it yet.

             

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 7:17pm

        Re: Re:

        Here from the blog of fans.

        Quote:
        In conclusion, please don’t support these aging relics, when you have the opportunity to be challenged and see two bands that are still forging their image rather than just being a parody of their former selves.

        http://www.collapseboard.com/brisbane/they-really-did-die-fuck-the-dead-kennedys/

        It doesn't look good does it?
        LoL

        Here is another gem:

        Quote:
        lazysupper said
        November 6, 2012 at 4:26 pm

        no. you shouldn’t need to decipher whether something is sarcasm or not. they are actually whining and moaning about music-sharing and BLAMING THEIR FANS who BOUGHT TICKETS to see them play live. Utterly fucking disgusting. If Jello were dead today he’d be rolling over in his grave.

        https://magicmuscle.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/new-dead-kennedys-song-mp3-get-off-the-web/

        The fuckers actually remade a song and in a live show acused fans of being thieving a-holes LoL

        Those are the guys that want fans to pay them?
        If I was a fan I would say "fuck you" and rip them off every chance I got.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 7:25pm

        Re: Re:

        Quote:
        MP3 Get Off The Web which is really just MTV Get Off The Air with lyrics changed to be about people downloading mp3s and how much they suck for doing it. And although I don’t believe that telling your fans at a concert that they are the problem with the music industry is a smart idea, the part that I really don’t like is that the new guy is changing Jello’s lyrics. This was the only song they did this on, I think, but if you wanna do that then just fucking write a new song, don’t butcher the classics if you’re not the guy who wrote it. It would piss me off to no end if Dio had changed lyrics to Ozzy era Black Sabbath songs live and this was much the same to me.

        http://dcheavymetal.com/2010/10/18/a-post-about-the-dead-kennedys/

        Yep, piracy is killing them not the fact that they release one new song in 24 years and it sucks, not that they called every fan they have a thief on live stage.

        Yep is piracy, for sure.

        LoL

         

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

      •  
        icon
        crade (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 10:39am

        Re: Re:

        So what if people are still using it? People still use lotsa stuff that was made in the past without paying for it over and over again continually. I fail to see the point.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        quawonk, Feb 22nd, 2013 @ 7:03am

        Re: Re:

        I'm sure the McDonald's that a construction crew built 20 years ago is still being used today, or "consumed". The construction crew are no longer being paid however. Why should musicians?

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Milton Freewater, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 4:02pm

      Re:

      "Typical entitled artist. Hasn't created anything since the 80's and still expects to get paid."

      Teenage East Bay would put middle-aged East Bay in the hospital on principle.

      Let's lynch the landlord, man.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Milton Freewater, Feb 20th, 2013 @ 4:00pm

    One thing this story proves

    East Bay Ray doesn't know Apple is a multinational corporation.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 10:31pm

    Either the pirate sites are making a killing and the record labels should do exactly what they're doing - put the music up for free and make money on ads....

    or the pirate sites aren't making any money and therefore constantly complaining about all the money they're making needs to stop.

    So which is it?

     

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

    •  
      icon
      art guerrilla (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 12:28pm

      Re:

      just fucking beautiful, man...
      great point, that pretty much blows their bullshit clean out of the water...

      (IF they were making arguments based on -you know- 'logic', rational thinking, and reasonable inferences...)

      that post deserves repeating EVERY TIME a copy maximalist bitches about how many zillion dollars pirates are making...

      art guerrilla
      aka ann archy
      eof

       

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

  •  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Feb 20th, 2013 @ 10:37pm

    Mike, Mike Mike.. You have it all wrong

    Of course the Artists are highly qualified to talk about Internet Advertising, you even state the reason why yourself!

    "internet display ads pay next to nothing"

    And why you ask they are qualified? Well isn't that payment of next to nothing EXACTLY what the recording Industry has been paying artists for decades? hmmmm?

     

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

  •  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 12:57am

    "So, if they had done the same percentage as say iTunes"

    Dear God, another moron who can't work out the difference between a product you pay to "own" and radio-style per-listen streaming where they're paid every time you listen. Why are these idiots unable to work out that YouTube, Spotify, etc. are completely different to iTunes/CDs - and may even be complimentary!?! (People can discover music through those methods, then buy the CD, or people may listen to a stream/watch a video of a song they've already bought - free f*cking money!)

    I give up. It's impossible to argue with people who can't even recognise the basic facts of their own industry. Were radio stations also stealing their revenue when people listened to their songs there instead of buying the cassette?

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 3:29am

    Ah, the trolling is strong in these comments. There are articles that manage to be more informative and enlightening in their comments than the articles themselves. Really. The angry troll here has given us a good display of how reason and logic is completely thrown out of the window for some religious copyright fundamentalism. Numbers are thrown as if they were sacred and given to these morons by God Himself. There's no argumentation, the only thing these people see is their point of view and when opposed they'll get ballistic and start throwing all sorts of insults, fallacies and insanities.

    http://cdn.ekendraonline.com/img/conventional-logiv-vs-religious-logic.jpg

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    The Real Michael, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 6:20am

    A message to greedy has-been musicians trying to live off their past accomplishments

    This isn't the 20th Century. The free ride is over. Get over yourself. The world doesn't owe you anything. Want money? Go out and earn it. Hard pill to swallow, I know, but that's reality. Get used to it because reality isn't going to change to accommodate your financial status.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 7:10am

    "Karma is the most powerful force on earth and you are going to get exactly what you deserve for your behavior on this blog."

    LOL, this describes him and Joe exactly word for word. One day, David and Joe are going to get what's coming to them. Because of the terrible things they write on this site every single day. Yes that's right, things remain on the internet for the rest of your lives, everything you've written here, every insult, every terrible threat, and slanderous posts you've made will come back to haunt you Joe, and you too Hurricane Head. We remember, we keep backups, we keep records, and we will Judge you one day. Karma is a bitch Joe.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 10:22am

    AdSense - how it works

    For those who listen to Lowery and don't read for themselves:
    http://bloggingyourpassion.com/how-much-does-google-adsense-pay/


    Adsense pays on a pay-per-click (PPC) basis, so publishers get paid based on how many clicks they get to their ads. The pay for each click can be as low as pennies and as high as $10 (in very rare cases). From the variety of blogs I have had I would say expecting to be paid 15-50 cents per click is a decent average.


    Sites ONLY get paid ones they reach the threshold:
    http://support.google.com/adsense/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1322042&topic=13165 79&ctx=topic

    And again, no clicky, no money!

    So no, Lowery doesn't know better! He knows worse.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 11:55am

      Re: AdSense - how it works

      Yes of course, nobody clicks on ads (especially pirates! Right Mike?), so all those tens of billions of dollars are being made by magic.

      You piracy apologists are a hilarious bunch.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Robert (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 11:57am

        Re: Re: AdSense - how it works

        Which sites are making tens of billions of dollars? If you read the links you'd understand the site gets revenue when it exceeds the threshold.

        So where's your proof of billions of dollars?

        Remember the Pirate Bay trial, they couldn't find the proof either because IT DID NOT EXIST!

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 12:13pm

          Re: Re: Re: AdSense - how it works

          Google revenues are around 40 billion dollars a year; 96% of which are made from ads.

          Google is an advertising company.

          Understand?

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Robert (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 12:21pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: AdSense - how it works

            So Google gets paid when you click on an ad on a non-Google site?

            You sure about that? Can you post a link?

            Or is it Google gets paid when an owner of a website SUBSCRIBES to Google's ad service and once the threshold has been paid to Google, the SITE OWNER gets the cash? Sorta like once you pay your CRM user license Microsoft allows you to deploy Internet Facing CRM instances, legally anyhow?

            So if your CRM instance is behind a site that hosts or links to sites/users that host infringing content, by your right Microsoft is liable and makes billions by users who pay to access that site?

            Care to show a breakdown of that $40 Billion rather that guess where it comes from?

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 11:58pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AdSense - how it works

              He can't. RIAA's cocksuckers can't do anything with numbers outside of pulling them from their ass.

               

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

          •  
            icon
            Lowestofthekeys (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 12:22pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: AdSense - how it works

            So you're saying they're evil because they make money as an advertising company?

            The tens of billions you "imagineered" include revenues from legitimate advertising, asshat.

            Besides, they've made it pretty clear they have problem with people advertising on a site with pirate bay links:

            http://www.kitguru.net/channel/jon-martindale/google-adsense-banned-author-for-pirate-bay- link/

             

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

          •  
            icon
            Lowestofthekeys (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 12:26pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: AdSense - how it works

            So you're saying Google is evil because they make revenue off of advertising?

            You do know the tens of billions you "imagineered" come from legitimate advertising, and if advertising on pirate sites is so lucrative, why is Google shutting down adsense accounts for people who have pirate bay links on their webpages.For example, Cory Jackson had his adsense account banned for linking to his own book on pirate bay.

             

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

          •  
            icon
            Robert (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 12:28pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: AdSense - how it works

            Try this:
            http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=GOOG+Income+Statement&annual

            Or this:

            Three Months Ended
            June 30, Six Months Ended
            June 30,
            2008 2009 2008 2009
            Advertising revenues:


            Google web sites

            $ 3,530,145 $ 3,652,628 $ 6,930,550 $ 7,345,451
            Google Network web sites

            1,655,280 1,683,500 3,341,421 3,321,542

            Total advertising revenues

            5,185,425 5,336,128 10,271,971 10,666,993
            Licensing and other revenues

            181,787 186,769 281,284 364,894

            Revenues

            $ 5,367,212 $ 5,522,897 $ 10,553,255 $ 11,031,887


            From 2009:
            http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312509150129/dex992.htm

            So you see they get money from THEIR OWN SITES, in addition to licensing technology like Microsoft or any other technology company.

            So because they made $40 billion, it MUST be from advertising on "pirate" sites they don't own but might collect a small revenue from for licensing the ad software usage, assuming those sites are even using Google's technology - which someone showed above that they ARE NOT.

             

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

      •  
        icon
        Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 11:21pm

        Re: Re: AdSense - how it works

        Yes of course, nobody clicks on ads (especially pirates! Right Mike?), so all those tens of billions of dollars are being made by magic.

        Incredible. At this point it's clear that you're not just misinformed, but even after this has been explained to you a dozen times above, you're still not getting it.

        Google makes most of its ad money on SEARCH ads, not on ads on third party sites. People click on lots of *search* ads, but that's got nothing to do with ads on other sites. This was in the post and discussed throughout the comments, and you still keep pretending they're the same thing.

        Do you really not understand this or are you so unable to admit that you're wrong that you're now just repeating blatant lies?

        Incredible.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        silverscarcat (profile), Feb 24th, 2013 @ 9:12am

        Re: Re: AdSense - how it works

        Actually, a lot of people don't, simply because they run adblock.

        I installed it, I hardly ever see ads on any site I visit.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    John G, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 10:23am

    This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

    I feel as though the writer of this article is missing Ray's point. Ray may be misinformed about how websites generate income and to what volume, but he is correct that the internet's increase directly correlates to the decline in music sales.

    Further, the writer of this article basis his argument around youtube, but skips the fundamental issue of how ISP's affect music sales. The author automatically assumes that Youtube is incremental to music sales, and not harmful. He does not address that issue and just skips over it.

    The reason he skips over it is because no one knows if youtube and other ISP's hurt sales, but the figures suggest that they do. He skips over them either because he is ignorant of the issues involved or is deceptive. Based on his writing style and understanding of the situation, it could be either.

    Instead of genuinely assessing the situation, I think this author just wanted to be a smarmy dick. He succeeded.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Anonymous Coward (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 10:46am

      Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

      I must disagree, you've missed the author's point.


      1) The medium for distribution of music has changed. It has become more flexible and consumers have voiced what they want. They want singles. Singles cost less than albums. Albums are still bought if they are any good. Thus revenue is down so artists shares are down because instead of selling 12 songs you're selling 1 or 2 or 3.

      2) Brick and mortar stores that sold music exclusively have been killed by the discounted label pricing offered to department stores, like BestBuy, WalMart, etc.. and chain music stores who can purchase in bulk. Even chain music stores who were not big enough to battle label price demands had to augment sales with other items to get people in the door - that is, movies and posters.

      3) Videogames are no longer just for nerds or restricted to complicated computers which require more hardware than the average consumer can afford or think to buy. Videogames have taken off and consumed huge amounts of entertainment dollars.

      4) Home theatre systems take the old VCR/TV (maybe your stereo) option and blow it out of the water - people choose this because a) kids disrupt theatre goers, b) theatre costs are quite high, c) more selection at your rental store (online or brick and mortar), d) DVD prices have dropped so people replace old worn out VHS with DVD or blue-ray and enjoy at home, e) you can't stop the movie for a bathroom break, etc...

      5) What are these "older" artists doing to attract people's attention beyond ranting? What have they written lately that people will want to buy? Bob Dylan did very well, but he also has nice packages for people to buy, increasing his revenue beyond just the content copy.

      6) The Internet leveled the playing field, no more are people stuck begging a record producer/A&R person to listen to them and if they like them, being told to sound like someone else. There is competition and THAT is what upsets older artists like East Bay Ray/Lowery and the labels more than anything. How dare someone else who's not a "professional" write music? How dare someone do this as a hobby? How dare someone not go through "proper channels" to get heard like it used to be? How will we filter all of this, oh the horror, the horror?

      7) And most of all, some artists refuse to understand what has happened and what it really means. They want to focus on art, not how one generates revenue online or how the Internet actually works or how things used to be before copyrights were abused. That's SUPPOSED to be their management and labels' area of expertise. Clearly it is not!

      Fucking Todd Rundgren was far more intelligent and had greater forethought for the Internet than anyone else and he's a musician from the 70's. 3 fucking years before Napster he pitched the idea to the labels. Don't believe me? Watch this:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqXbkKwCHj8
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-a6ogGFV-8

      T he only person being an ignoramus is East Bay Ray, monopolizing the entire panel and acting like Lowery. Rather than looking at the past and complaining, they should have been looking forward like Todd is!

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 11:00am

        Re: Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

        "1) The medium for distribution of music has changed. It has become more flexible and consumers have voiced what they want. They want singles. Singles cost less than albums. Albums are still bought if they are any good. Thus revenue is down so artists shares are down because instead of selling 12 songs you're selling 1 or 2 or 3."

        Don't forget Spotify, which has become the second largest provider of revenues to the record labels (right below Itunes).

        Spotify provides a better try-before-you-buy service allowing the consumer to not have to bother wasitng his money.

        "4) Home theatre systems take the old VCR/TV (maybe your stereo) option and blow it out of the water - people choose this because a) kids disrupt theatre goers, b) theatre costs are quite high, c) more selection at your rental store (online or brick and mortar), d) DVD prices have dropped so people replace old worn out VHS with DVD or blue-ray and enjoy at home, e) you can't stop the movie for a bathroom break, etc..."

        Another good point.

        There's also been talk of Hollywood going direct to Video-on-Demand with new movies. I'd prefer to pay 30 bucks for a movie if I could watch it with two or three friends, avoid the hassles of the theatre and provide my own food.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Robert (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 11:05am

          Re: Re: Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

          Agreed with Video-On-Demand. Though I don't know about $30, but yeah, released SAME TIME as theatres, even on the same schedule like the theatre.

          It's like TheatreAtHome and no windowed releases, but you pay per use + service fee (REASONABLE - charge $50 + $20/movie and you won't sell shit!).

          I have a kid, I'd like to be able to watch movies without his crying disturbing others. I also want closed captioning so I can read through his cries.

           

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

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 10:55am

      Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

      "youtube and other ISP's"

      Erm, before you try making comments criticising others' understanding of a subject, try to learn some things yourself - such as the definition of ISP. YouTube is in no way shape or form an internet service provider.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_service_provider

      "I think this author just wanted to be a smarmy dick."

      I think this site would do well if people opposing what's being said actually took their own advice. You've said nothing, made several uncited claims and vague accusation, got the definition of some basic terms completely wrong and finished off with name calling. Not the most convincing counterpoint.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        John G, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 11:06am

        Re: Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

        Yes, I used ISP correctly. You are using a non-inclusive definition. Please research more about copyright and the DMCA before you accuse someone of misusing terms when you do not understand their full range.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act

        Nex t time, please do more research before commenting, which will allow you make an informed statement.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Robert (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 11:12am

          Re: Re: Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

          By your logic because the labels ripped off artists for years, they are thieves!

          Hmm non-exclusive definition is quite nice isn't it?

          Funny how you like to a liability article when you claim Internet Service Provider is the same as youtube. By it's very definition, an ISP provides Internet Service, more correctly access to the internet.

          By your implication, any website is an ISP.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            John G, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 11:19am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

            It seems that you have not taken my suggestion and have not read the wiki article that describes what an ISP is, with regard to copyright. Under the DMCA, youtube is an ISP. Please go read about this more before commenting, because you are using the terms incorrectly. Worse, when the terms are used correctly, you are claiming that they are used incorrectly. You do not know what you are talking about.

            Here's a short primer for you, as you obviously don't want to actually read the legislation and better inform yourself:

            "Parties governed by 512 takedowns are "Online Content Providers." A subsection of OCPs are "Internet Service Providers." The DMCA is somewhat ambiguous when defining these terms, so it is difficult to accurately characterize an ISP. But, roughly speaking, it suffices to say websites such as Youtube, Facebook, and OKCupid, where users put up their own content without any interference or checking from the website operators, are ISPs. ""

            I'm not going to address this again as you are uninformed and just want to argue, instead of actually understanding the issue.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Robert (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 11:42am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

              Why your own quote you explain why I am not wrong.

              "The DMCA is somewhat abmiguous" because the DMCA was drafted by the Music Industry in efforts to label anyone involving the Internet a provider. Just because Congress doesn't understand the terms doesn't make them so.

              This is the typical conflation of terms that causes all the problems. Your law is wrong, using the wrong terminology. Dumb tubes provide no content.

              ISP's are no more content providers than USB or SATA cables.

              They do NOT host content, but merely provide a conduit to connect to devices that CAN hold content (USB Keys, HDD's, DVD's, or someone's web server or cluster of web servers which technically connect to HDD's via mass storage bays - also clustered).

              Do you think Congress could understand that nuance? No. They fucked that up and any idiot judge who can think logically would dismiss that, assuming they can wrap their head around the obvious intentional misuse of terms.

              You are uninformed about the real words and their true meanings, not legal implications.

              By your legal implication pushed by the DMCA, fucking SATA cables are liable!

              Youtube is an OCP, not an ISP! Youtube requires TWO ISP's to operate, one to provide the connection of Youtube's serves to the web, the other for individual users to access the web. Again, the ISP is the same as a SATA cable, with the exception the SATA cable doesn't listen when RIAA says "You allow piracy by not blocking content that flows through your tubes and therefor are liable."

              Totally different!

              ISP's do not kill businesses. If you think so then you might as well give up. They are no more responsible than SATA cables, Web Browsers (after all without them no YouTube), Operating Systems, or hardware used by end-users or gateway routers.

              ISP's are argued this, but they don't have the same cash to defend it and unfortunately the law is controlled by who has the cash, not what is accurate.

              Thanks to your laws, a corporation is a legal entity even though it is technically a puppet controlled by real human beings who know this and do anything without much fear of recourse. So don't hand me "the law of liability" says YouTube is a fucking ISP when the first thing you failed to understand is YouTube is an OCP, not an ISP. Following the wikipedia links should have solved that for you.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                Rikuo (profile), Feb 24th, 2013 @ 8:25am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

                By this guy's logic, if a law said "The owner of a donkey is liable for damages under vehicular damages laws because the law says a donkey is a mechanical vehicle", he'd be all over it. Laws are supposed to fit reality, they cannot magically alter reality to fit themselves.

                 

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

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Feb 22nd, 2013 @ 1:02am

          Re: Re: Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

          Perhaps I'm missing something here, but that link doesn't redefine ISP in any way from what I can see, and the first mention of the term links to the same article I linked you to. it's possible that you're referring to the mention of OSP - but that's a completely different acronym that means something completely different to the one you repeatedly use.

          Please quote the sections you think redefine the meaning of ISP - a meaning that was around for many years before the DMCA and related crap reared their ugly heads. The actual definition of ISP is a company that provides access to the internet through dial-up, DSL, cable, 3G or other technology - so, Verizon, Time Warner cable, Vodafone, etc. YouTube is in NO way an ISP under this correct definition, unless you have something that redefines the term. The article you linked to does no such thing, from what I can see.

          Oh, and stop acting like an arrogant ass while stating things that are clearly wrong. Either explain where you're getting your unique definition of the term from, or admit you're mistaken. I can accept an apology if you meant OSP when you were tying ISP, but trying to act like such a smug asshole while telling me I don't know my own industry terminology does not make me wish to consider your other "points" - many of which are as clearly wrong to me as the use of ISP.

          "Nex t time, please do more research before commenting, which will allow you make an informed statement."

          My research consists of over 20 years in IT both as a hobbyist and a professional, which allows me to know the definition of basic technical terms that have been around since well before I got online in 1996. What are your qualifications for be trying to redefine the English language on the fly?

           

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

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 11:50am

      Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

      Further, the writer of this article basis his argument around youtube, but skips the fundamental issue of how ISP's affect music sales. The author automatically assumes that Youtube is incremental to music sales, and not harmful. He does not address that issue and just skips over it.


      Define harmful please.

      If you are only looking at sales of recorded music, then you might have a point. The problem with that is when you remove the top 5% money earners and composers from the equation most musicians only rely on copyright (ie: recorded music) for 25% or less of their overall income.

      Youtube and the internet have created tons of new opportunities for musicians without having to rely on the old "lottery winner" system of the labels where only 1% of musicians made any profit at all.

      So please explain who is getting "harmed" in your view. Are you only referring to established musicians with label contracts or are you referring to all musicians across the board?

       

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

    •  
      icon
      art guerrilla (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 1:21pm

      Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

      replying to original poster-
      oh, fuck off and die, already:

      1. i buy CLOSE TO ZERO music anymore, why ? ? ?
      NOT because i pirate (I DON'T), but because of these reasons:

      A. while there is a LOT of good music by indies, the 'mainstream' music pushed by Big Media generally sucks...
      (if i hear that shitty 'you're a firework...' crap-song one more time, i'm going postal... and -for dog's sake- could someone FORCE katy perry to use auto-tune, geezus her voice sounds crappy...)

      B. sorry, i'm STILL pissed off that when stupid freaking (CHEAPER) CDs came out, Big Music ASSURED US the prices would drop from their over-priced level... they never did...

      C. DRM-laden media, 'licenses', and all the other bullshit games Big Media plays DO NOT serve ME THE CUSTOMER; in fact, THE OPPOSITE: they inconvenience me, the LEGITIMATE buyer, NOT THE PIRATES... the pirates have a BETTER PRODUCT...
      (why is it copy-maximalists NEVER address that conundrum ? ? ?)

      D. while at work i listen to slacker radio, when i'm at home, i listen to all my old CD's i've ripped... once in a blue moon, i'll buy a $5 CD in a bargain bin, usually a 'best of...' compilation... otherwise, they can keep their shit...

      E. any other music i get these days, is either from archive.org (THE BEST website on the planet), or from individual artists...

      in short, i will NEVER buy Big Medias shitty products again because they suck, they are too expensive, and they are crippled...

      has NOTHING to do with napster, pirating, or anything but the shitty products and attitudes of Big Media...

      it will be a happy day for the WORLD when Big Media shrivels up and dies...

      art guerrilla
      aka ann archy
      eof

       

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

      •  
        icon
        nasch (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 1:40pm

        Re: Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

        sorry, i'm STILL pissed off that when stupid freaking (CHEAPER) CDs came out, Big Music ASSURED US the prices would drop from their over-priced level... they never did...

        If you take inflation into account they did, and it doesn't make sense not to over such a long time period. Now whether they dropped as much as promised or as fast as promised is another question.

         

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

  •  
    icon
    joeybombstyle (profile), Feb 21st, 2013 @ 2:36pm

    I think Mike's point here was how misinformed Ray was about the panel he was to be sitting on and how some of the business models work for new tech. My understanding was that this was to be an opportunity to discuss how artists could make money using new tech not a chance to complain about an issue that has been debated to death. Many artists have come to embrace the new opportunities that are accessible to them with the information age and not just tried to find ways to fit old square pegs into new round holes. It's a totally new mind set and the interesting part is that many of the folks that are bitter are unknowingly in effect arguing in favor of system that they once held in contempt. There were so many ways that artists particularly musicians never saw a dime from what they made in the past. Most musicians never knew that they were never making any money off those neat like get 12 tapes for a penny models from Columbia House and BMG back in the day.
    The point being there are many folks out there that want to discuss these new business models not as an alternative to piracy but strictly as a new way to do business. These are some of the ridiculous statements that are being made by folks who don't decide to find a way to focus their energies into a productive manner and rather come up with knee jerk reactions such as Bruce Dickenson and Gene Simons stating that bands giving their music away for free is causing them to lose money because then all the listeners are only going to listen to free music. Well maybe that's true but so what. To bad that's a personal decision on the listeners end. No where does it say that you are obligated to make money for classifying yourself as a musician. You do have the right to be expected to be paid for you music if that is what you want and that is the model that you follow and you do have legal recourse to stop "piracy" of your music as you always have. Actually you have more ability to do so now because it's not me handing my buddy a dubbed tape anymore. It's there it's in the "authorities" face that it is being provided outside of your requested format, but although Google and Youtube are required to protect your interests they are not required to give you a profitable platform. So if you have a problem with someone posting a DK album on Youtube by all means take action to have it removed, but Youtube does not have any moral obligation to cater to you and keep that material there and find a way to pay you.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Martin, Feb 21st, 2013 @ 8:35pm

    I saw East Bay Ray at a panel at a similar conference in Berkeley which was hosted by the California Lawyers for the Arts. The EXACT same thing happened at that conference as well. Ray went on a very long rant about pirate websites and the handout of the Russian website you mention in this article was the one he had at the conference in Berkeley as well. He kept cutting people off and went on these long tangents which made the event somewhat worthless to watch beacuse he didn't let other people speak as much. At one point, he made a reference to Hitler and the Nuremburg trials, but I don't remember the context in which he made that statement. He clearly is passionate about music and the music business, but his lack of civility at panel discussions is shocking. I sure hope that other conferences do not invite him to speak at panels if he continues to act this way. Granted, if he can act in a more civilized matter and is able to articulate his points better (after completing the appropriate research, of course), then I would be willing to sit down and listen to what he has to say.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    apauld (profile), Feb 22nd, 2013 @ 11:27am

    Has anyone else looked at the Dead Kennedys website?

    Their 'US' store consists of 17 t-shirts, 3 patches, 1 sticker and 1 hoodie. The 'UK' store sells 8 different t-shirts. No music for sale at all, not CDs, records or downloads. And look at amazon if you want more nuttiness. MP3 albums of "Give me Convenience" and "Mutiny on the Bay" are price higher than the new CDs. And the new price for the "Frankenchrist" CD is $36. These are things that the band and their label could easily correct if they really wanted to do so; but I'm guessing they won't.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 22nd, 2013 @ 1:44pm

      Re: Has anyone else looked at the Dead Kennedys website?

      Their 'US' store consists of 17 t-shirts, 3 patches, 1 sticker and 1 hoodie. The 'UK' store sells 8 different t-shirts. No music for sale at all, not CDs, records or downloads. And look at amazon if you want more nuttiness. MP3 albums of "Give me Convenience" and "Mutiny on the Bay" are price higher than the new CDs. And the new price for the "Frankenchrist" CD is $36. These are things that the band and their label could easily correct if they really wanted to do so; but I'm guessing they won't.

      I don't know for sure, but I do wonder if that has to do with the lawsuit that Jesse Townley mentioned above. Basically Ray and the other bandmates sued the main guy behind the DKs, Jello Biafra, over a variety of things, including ownership of the music and (bizarrely) what they claimed was his failure to promote their back catalog enough.

      The website is of the new DKs (without Biafra). But, yeah, even with the legal stuff, seems silly.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        apauld (profile), Feb 22nd, 2013 @ 8:01pm

        Re: Re: Has anyone else looked at the Dead Kennedys website?

        I was a rabid DK fanback in the early 80s and followed that case closely. As I recall, the other guys won conclusively; so much so that they stripped the entire catalog from Alternative Tentacles (Biafra's label) and then licensed it out to another label (or labels), and I would think it would behoove them and the new label to have something worked out for mutual benefit. I also went back to their site a short while ago and realized that you can only stream 5 of their songs on the entire site, doesn't seem like their trying to get even a few new fans. Unfortunately for them many of us that were fans back in the day, it just isn't Dead Kennedys without Jello's abrasive vocals; and thus prefer the idea of seeing his new stuff, even his spoken word shows.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2013 @ 4:41pm

        Re: Re: Has anyone else looked at the Dead Kennedys website?

        uh yeah... because it's so hard to go to itunes to buy the bands music. you know, like the #1 music store in the world... [facepalm]

        also mike, tell us why you are defending the exploitation of musicians for corporate profiteering? why not just admit this is a bad illegal practice and that there should be something done about these businesses profiting from the artists labor illegally...

        really, it can't be that hard to understand. even google get's it (sorta).

        if there's no money in ad sponsored piracy, that's really funny, because you know... google is tracking 200,000 domains that don't pay artists.

        I get that artist exploitation is your bag, and no one should ever question any internet company for taking advantage of artists, but let's get real.

        and finally, saying that YouTube created revenue streams that didn't exist could also be said of Compact Discs, Itunes, and anything else. the problem is, youtube didn't create those revenue streams for artists until they got busted ripping artists off - funny, where have I had that bit before... oh yeah, record labels.

        new boss same (or worse) than the old boss, again...

         

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

        •  
          icon
          btrussell (profile), Feb 23rd, 2013 @ 5:19pm

          Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else looked at the Dead Kennedys website?

          "...until they got busted ripping artists off - funny, where have I had that bit before... oh yeah, record labels..."


          Massive Copyright Class Action Settlement Approved: Record Labels to Pay $50 Million
          http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5825/125/

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Robert (profile), Feb 23rd, 2013 @ 7:18pm

          Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else looked at the Dead Kennedys website?

          As always, spouting things that are not true.

          Shouldn't you be over at your trichordist site there CastleLowery, taking screenshots of The Pirate Bay ads and blaming Google (whom we've already proven is NOT running ads on those sites)?

          New rant same as the old rant from you!

          Maybe, just maybe, if you were not so damn bitter that people trade your work rather than pay for it, and maybe they would if you gave them a reason to buy, and maybe if you didn't attack potential customers, you wouldn't be in the situation you are in.

          You know what though? I bet if people stopped filesharing your work, completely, and likely sales would drop as a result, you'd still bitch and moan rather than do something about it.

          It is your choice! Adapt or vanish in the quicksand of your own making.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Feb 24th, 2013 @ 12:40am

          Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else looked at the Dead Kennedys website?

          "uh yeah... because it's so hard to go to itunes to buy the bands music. you know, like the #1 music store in the world... [facepalm]

          also mike, tell us why you are defending the exploitation of musicians for corporate profiteering?"

          Oh dear, another AC too stupid to understand the basic fact that people streaming through YouTube and people buying music are not the same market. Plus, that the former may well be people who have already bought the album and are actually giving additional money the band wouldn't otherwise have.

          Why don't you stop spouting complete bullshit and listen to the arguments actually being made rather than lying and name calling?

          "ripping artists off....record labels."

          Yes, there's many documented cases of record labels ripping artists off. A shame you never realise that in your rabid defence of them against their own customers.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Karl (profile), Feb 24th, 2013 @ 12:46am

          Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else looked at the Dead Kennedys website?

          also mike, tell us why you are defending the exploitation of musicians for corporate profiteering?

          He will, as soon as you tell us when you stopped beating your wife.

          if there's no money in ad sponsored piracy, that's really funny, because you know... google is tracking 200,000 domains that don't pay artists.

          Google is tracking far more than 200,000 domains that don't pay artists. For example, State Farm probably doesn't pay a dime in royalties to ASCAP. How dare they!!!

          ...Unless you mean they're somehow "tracking" 200,000 "pirate sites." In which case, I call bullshit.

          saying that YouTube created revenue streams that didn't exist could also be said of Compact Discs, Itunes, and anything else.

          Not really, because YouTube's ContentID is a completely different revenue stream than the ones you mentioned, which rely on selling copies of the music.

          But even if you disagree, then so what? Are you also saying that the Compact Disc, iTunes, and "anything else" forced 12,000 musicians out of work, like East Bay Ray did? ...Wait, you probably are.

          the problem is, youtube didn't create those revenue streams for artists until they got busted ripping artists off

          YouTube never "got busted ripping artists off." To be sure, ContentID eased tensions between Google and rightsholders, and that's partially why they spent millions and millions of dollars developing it, even though no law says they had to. (Not a dime of those development costs was paid for by rightsholders, the fucking freetards.) But saying they only did it because they "got busted" is pure hogwash.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 27th, 2013 @ 8:03am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else looked at the Dead Kennedys website?

            You are probably the dumbest pirate that posts here, and that's saying a lot.

            1. Google ITSELF listed over 200,000 domains that use ads to profit from infringing works.

            2. YouTube DID get busted for ripping off artists; they were sued by Viacom in an open and shut case that was screwed up by a questionable judge and is currently in the appeals process.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              PaulT (profile), Feb 27th, 2013 @ 8:19am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else looked at the Dead Kennedys website?

              "You are (a) pirate"

              Citation needed

              "1. Google ITSELF..."

              Citation needed

              "2. YouTube DID get busted... is currently in the appeals process."

              A lie exposed by your very next sentence - a.k.a. "Waaah! Reality doesn't fit my assumptions again!"

              So, 3 claims, none of them supported by reality, one only making sense if you assume that the judge "screwed up" by delivering a verdict other than the one you wanted (in a case where Viacom were accusing YouTube of pirating things they gave specific permission to be distributed, no less).

              You're constantly pathetic, glad to see things aren't changing.

               

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

            •  
              icon
              nasch (profile), Feb 27th, 2013 @ 8:22am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else looked at the Dead Kennedys website?

              YouTube DID get busted for ripping off artists; they were sued by Viacom in an open and shut case that was screwed up by a questionable judge and is currently in the appeals process.

              LOL, this is hilarious! YouTube got busted! In a case they haven't lost! Wheeee!!

               

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 24th, 2013 @ 7:58pm

          Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else looked at the Dead Kennedys website?

          Got those sleeping giant artist friends to wake up yet, hurricane head up your ass, or are you still licking Lowery's shoes for money? For fuck's sake, it's been several years; even Alpine marmots don't hibernate that long!

           

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

  •  
    identicon
    This isn't a name, Feb 22nd, 2013 @ 12:41pm

    "Rennie pushed back on some of Ray's claims, and Ray just went on something of a rampage, comparing internet sites to companies that exploited child labor in the past."

    Funny that Ray would make that comparison when he was more than happy to line his own pockets with money made from sweatshop labor when Levi's wanted to use 'Holiday in Cambodia' in an ad.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    East Bay Raytarded, Mar 15th, 2014 @ 6:03am

    Is it just me or does PaulT sound strikingly similar to EBR

    I know this thread has been dead for a while but I decided to revisit it after hearing that the Dead Kennedys will be playing Rockfest in Montebello this year. Couldn't remember if these ridiculous ramblings by a washed out piece of shit former punk were real or just a bad dream.

    Fuck its real. Well not much I can say that hasn't already been said so here's just a couple of my thoughts on the matter.

    I started listening to the Dead Kennedys as a young impressionable punk in about 1990. I loved the band instantly and though I've never seen them play live I did go out and buy all their albums (some of which I own on Vinyl, Cassette and CD). It was a time before the internet so I had to buy albums I wanted to listen to. In fact I had an insane collection of music (especially of the punk type) and though I'm still quite proud of it I have no idea where any of it is hiding now. I've moved to many times and I can only assume its in a bunch of unmarked boxes which are collecting dust in my parents basement (about 1800km from me right now). So ya I'll play songs on youtube and I've even been known to download a few albums of "pirating sites".

    Now don't get me wrong, I'm no saint. I have downloaded some stuff I don't own but most of that un-owned material is from bands I didn't know about before. The internet has served as a great social medium for new bands and for rediscovering old bands you might have missed hearing about as a kid.

    Now that I got most of that long story out of me I'll just skip to the bottom line. I only listen to bands I respect and I respect bands who will play the shit they love and sign about what they believe in. If I like what they're saying and the music hits home with me then I'm happy. Now I'll support these bands anyway I can (within my means). If that means going to a show, buying merch, or giving the band a place to sleep and have a few beers then I'll do it but lets face it nobody got into punk to make money haha. Hey bonus if you can carve out a living for yourself or even make a pretty penny at that but I wasn't so lucky (and I never expected to be) but I had a shit ton of fun and made a lot of good friends along the way.

    So in the end sorry East Bay Ray and the dead kennedys I just don't respect you anymore. You sold out who you were to try and scrape a few more $$ from shit you wrote over 30 years ago (which has its place in nostalgia but has lost a lot of its relevance in our current day and age). So I beg of you, do us all favour and fuck off. I don't care where really just leave the scene so we can remember who you were and not what you became. Thanks.

    P.S. Here's some free advice. If you want to stimulate sales and interest in your band again then write new shit. If its good (or regurgitated shit) people will more then likely buy it. Haha to be honest though considering your actions in the last couple decades this might be a forgotten talent so just go with the status quo and release a few more live albums nobody cares about you fucking lazy fucks lol.

     

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


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