...and? He wasn't claiming that he was personally responsible for the verdict, he was disclaiming a personal connection to the case he'd already written about. Not a bad move, especially given some of the more idiotic accusations against him that are often written here.
I don't know why you despise the man so much, but you can't even let it go when you agree that he is right. You can't address anything actually said or achieved about the case itself, so you have to try and turn an 11 word factual comment into a sarcastic personal attack.
The sad thing is, I'm sure you'd be the first to try and spin the amicus brief as something nefarious if he didn't disclose it, or imply that the lack of disclose is itself suspicious. if some of you guys weren't so obsessed about attacking this site for every minor thing you can think of, maybe you'd be listened to a little more when something worth discussing comes along.
"This story is about Europe, where I understand they don't have a problem with entrenched monopolist ISPs."
It's also about mobile, where there's generally less competition. Although most areas have at least 3 or 4 competitors, some do have a history of colluding. If, say, Orange, T-Mobile and Vodafone all decide to do this, your choices are suddenly very, very limited even if there are one or two or major competitors for you to choose from.
I'd love to hear his explanation for this claim, if he weren't an obsessed moron who loves to just threadshit and run every time.
I mean, let's say that his fictional premise is true, and Google make most of their profits from piracy (they don't, of course, but let's bear with this lie for now). How in the hell would extending copyright by 20 years *reduce* those profits? Surely, that just extends the number of years for which pirated copies can exist, and thus the length of time Google can profit from it. In reality, of course, Google make money either way since their ad revenue is not predicated on the copyright status of the things people search for, but if it was this just guaranteed them 20 years more income from every work.
Even in the fiction they've created for themselves, there's no internal logical consistency. Maybe that's why people like him whine all the time here about losing money. I mean, if this is the standard of their creative work, it's no wonder they can't sell it.
"Karl can't dispute the published facts, so he attacks the messenger"
You mean like you did with your first post? You didn't refute anything, you just attacked Mike and provided a link with questionable bias. But, it's your favoured bias, so you'll claim that it's "right" and this site is "wrong" without expressing why.
But, hey, congrats on actually attempting to back up your own assertions this time rather than imitating farm animals and lying about anyone who disagrees with you. Now, if only you would extend that into actually discussing the facts rather than pretending that the argument is magically over because you randomly stumbled across something who could confirm your pre-existing biases.
Re: While Taylor Swift got $200 million in the old-fashioned way.
Oh, I love it. You can't argue with anything actually said, so you fall back on "musicians are too stupid to work out how to make a living on their own, please tell them!". Makes a change from the litany of "that will never work" and "nobody will make the GDP of a small country so it doesn't count" that people like you shat out on every thread detailing examples for the last decade, I suppose.
"those aren't NEW because of "teh internets"."
Nobody said they were, only that the dynamics of the business have been totally disrupted by the internet and that opens up huge numbers of opportunities for independent musicians. Mental midgets like yourself not only obsess over money to the degree that you reject the people who have been very successful at this because they don't have 9 figure bank accounts, but they most certainly exist. There would be many more of them too, if the labels didn't control all the major radio, advertising & sales outlets to the degree they do. Your beloved labels are still making money despite their whining, because the system they gamed in their favour is still gamed in their favour - that is changing, but they managed to get numerous morons to bet against their own interests.
Now, are you ready to address reality, or are you going to whine at that fictional universe again?
Still waiting for a citation for this "fact". Why are all self-proclaimed musicians, who presumably live or die based on their music being known, so afraid to attach their recording names to these rants?
"In the 5 minutes I spent reading this rant and the comments that followed it, I was overwhelmed by the number of misinformed or logically faulty arguments expressed"
So, why not list them and educate others rather than making a fact-free call to emotion based upon a fact that's not in evidence?
"I love debating on the internet "
Go on then, debate us. You have to provide something to debate first, not "nuh uhh" like a child.
"All of you musically ignorant fucks"
Oh, you're not here to debate, you're just a smug twat who likes to call people names rather than listen to any arguments. Carry on, then...
"piracy is "too benign of a term to adequately describe the toll that music theft" takes on musicians"
It certainly is. So, what term should we be using for music whose rights have been permanently taken away from musicians by their one-sided record label contracts, royalty collection agencies who fail to pay out to artists, managers who demand huge cuts of streaming royalties before they make it to the artists, contracts that sometimes prevent them from even releasing music they've recorded and the many other injustices forced upon them by the legacy industry?
That's what they meant, right? Things that are actually taken from musicians, not simply people who listened to them without paying a direct toll, many of whom actually also do pay later or in other ways? Because that would just be silly.
"So why there exist things like piracy taxes for devices that supposedly can be used to pirate content?"
It's far easier to punish end users and large legitimate businesses than actually go after the people who make money from piracy. They're also not ignorant of the fact that most "piracy" is simply people sharing music with each other as they always have, and you can't shut down social human behaviour with mere laws.
"Someone profits from it, maybe it's not apple, but someone does."
Bingo, which is why those taxes and Waters' ignorant claims are the bullshit that they are. Apple doesn't profit, but it's easier to attack them and their devices than the people actually profiting from piracy.
"I doubt it's the artists, though."
Keep reading, you'd be amazed at how little they often profit from legal listening as well.
Re: Is Mr. Waters ignorant of the gazillions of artists who were completely scewed out of their cut by the gatekeepers?
"many artists didn't make a dime "
Waters was one of those who actually benefited long term from the old system, and he's probably been fooled into thinking it was mere talent that got him there when so many musicians of his generation didn't. Add a complete misunderstanding of new technology and a pinch of "old man shouts at clouds" syndrome, and we have the above misinformed, ignorant rant.
"Stopped reading at the hilarious "52% gamer womyn" part. Seriously, if the "research" only includes candycrush and farmville..."
So, you ignored the following sentence and the linked evidence because they don't fit your preconceived notions? Or, are you the kind of idiot who things that only one kind of online FPS counts as "real" gaming and nobody else playing games counts?
"your chances of making a living are way less than they were"
Utter bullshit, unfortunately. You might not make millions in royalties, but you probably wouldn't have done in the past unless you were a successful artist signed to a major label in the past - and even the like of Prince and George Michael had to fight in court to get paid. If you mean live music, there's plenty of options unless you suck. But, what a surprise, yet another self-proclaimed musician who won't identify himself or his work to prove his point. Yawn. Waters is wrong, but at least he's not afraid to stand behind his opinion.
"People don't want to feel guilty about using Spotify and the rest"
I feel no more guilt than I did over listening to radio back when I used to do that, especially since I pay more per month for my subscription than I often did to buy music back in the 90s. Should I? Why?
"the fact is musicians are screwed by streaming"
"And look at how many bands and musicians have made it on to the scene in the past 10 years, who weren't top 40 corporate drivel (or hip hop)."
Which scenes? The EDM/dance music scene? Dubstep? Black metal? Prog rock? Indie rock? Folk? Reggae? There is a valid hip hop scene, several in fact. If you refuse to state your parameters, nobody can prove you wrong so there's that, I suppose. There are hundreds, possibly thousands of "scenes". Which are you referring to?
As for corporate drivel, is that somehow Spotify's fault, or the major labels you're so valiantly trying to defend here?
Historically, crap like this can get waved around by idiot politicians with axes to grind and use it as evidence of why they should restrict peoples' rights, make laws to restrict free speech and other such rubbish. Whether you're talking "Seduction of The Innocent" or anti-vaxxers, pretentious dicks do cause a lot of damage if someone decides to run with it.
I don't care if someone writes misleading rubbish to sell some books, but it's best to get objections out there before people start running with it as their political platform.