What does the ticket you purchase at the event say? Yeah, I don't know either. However, if it says you can't cover the event live, then maybe they have a case. Of course, now we have to start arguing about the EULA and things like that. Does just buying a ticket mean you are bound by whatever it says on the back?
It does sort of sound like a bit of whining on the leagues part. "B-b-but, we contracted with these people, not you!"
But, not being a lawyer, I guess I don't know how binding a ticket is. Even if it is, it would seem like their only recourse would be to kick you out if they catch you.
They may be making a stink only to try and keep the radio stations paying for the privilege. "We're doing everything we can to stop those nasty bloggers, honest."
Of course, it would be nice to wave a wand and get everything free, but I don't expect it and don't mind paying for things I perceive to have value.
Case in point, I have given money to artists for music (Flashbulb) and movies (Sita Sings the Blues), even after getting the items for free. However, I did not pay anything for Radiohead's album after download, because I think their music sucks.
If it has value for me, I'll pay. I shop at Target instead of Wal-mart because even if I'm paying more, there is value in giving money to a less-evil corporation.
I think the "get everything free" culture is mostly "kids", who don't understand how the world works.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I did "poke around the site". You also sell hoodies! Wow.
Okay. Your "business model" is "Give people stuff for free and then sell them expensive T-shirts". Is that right? You didn't used to do that. You used to have ads at the side. Maybe you still do. I don't see them, because of Adblock. So the ads weren't working out so well, or you wanted more money. Fine.
However, selling T-shirts is not a business model. You can claim you are "giving fans access", but really, who is going to pony up $10000 for "a theme for a week"? $20000 for you to speak at their business? How much do you usually charge to speak? It sure as hell isn't $20000. So most of your offerings are jokes. Why did you make the last one $100,000,000? Why not something a bit more down to earth, like say $250,000? Because you are worried some rich guy that doesn't like you might actually pay up?
So all I can conclude is that most of the offerings were just jokes, and you have no real intention of having to pay out for most of them. Even asking $25 for a T-shirt is a joke. It seems like it is all a joke to me, and not a "business model".
Are you going to get some suckers to pay up for some of the levels? Sure. Will this model apply to say, my website? My blog? Unlikely. As someone else above jokingly pointed out, the real business model is "be clever and make money, or be stupid and don't". You are clever, you are first, you have something unique. Hey, I like the site, I even agree with you sometimes. But I don't really like it enough to pay, and if it went away I'd say "Oh well" and move on.
It's really nice that you've made some kind of living doing this. I'm envious, really. I wish I was as clever, or had been in the right place at the right time. But honestly, don't pretend that selling T-shirts is a business model. It's just selling T-shirts.
To be honest, I didn't think I was "insulting my host". I did think I was (loosely) trying to imply that he was being disingenuous.
Mike is implying that he is doing his CWF+WTF campaign as a "business model". To show others how it is done, apparently. I don't see what his business is, other than selling expensive T-shirts. The blog is not a business, unless he puts up a pay-wall. The free blog came first, so how can you have a business model and no business?
I don't see any problem with asking people for money if they like what you are doing. If you're going to do it regardless, then it's nice to also get paid. But lets call it what it is, and that is begging. As far as I know, Mike is not in the T-shirt business. What he's doing now is pretty much the same as the guys on the street playing the guitar and having a hat out for donations. Do something for people and hope they feel guilty enough to toss a coin your way. Right?
Or have I misread something? Is Techdirt really just a way to sell expensive T-shirts? If nobody bought the T-shirts, would Techdirt go away? How long has Techdirt sold expensive T-shirts anyway? Is the business model "write a blog for 12 years and then Bam! sell them T-shirts"?
Well, my point (sorta) was that it doesn't matter how well it succeeds. It like the PBS channels that beg for money. You can get a book or DVD, but if you really wanted the book or DVD or T-shirt or whatever, you could just go out and buy it yourself and save a bunch of money. At least donating to PBS is tax-deductible.
Mike is not putting any money where his mouth is. He was apparently doing okay already, since the blog is been around for what, 12 years now? This is just a way to get extra money at absolutely no risk. And this isn't a business model, because Techdirt is a blog, not a business. Maybe he's trying to turn it into one? Selling what? Mike has already gone out and been a speaker, and I assume he gets paid to do that. This might give him "cred", but he can still do it whether he blogs on Techdirt or not.
Actually, by making it seem like a "membership" thing, he's probably making more money on a T-Shirt than if he had just sold them out-right. $25 for a T-shirt that might have cost him $2, and you could get for $10, if that. So his "business model" is really a lesson in how to rip people off and get them to thank you for it. "How much to let me white-wash your fence?"
It is all so obviously a joke that he included the $100,000,000 option.
Honestly, what does selling hoodies at high prices have to do with the blog in any case?
It seems to me that this plan can't help but work. Techdirt is basically begging for money. If they get anything at all, it's a success, right? I mean, 10 bucks is 10 bucks. They aren't really out much of anything regardless of how much they finally end up earning, and hopefully they've determined the dollar amounts so that if they have to produce something (say a T-shirt), that the donated amount is greater than the item or work involved to pay up.
So it's not really much of a "gamble" for them to try this. Maybe that's the point?
As for me, I don't wear T-shirts, so it doesn't matter much to me.
What the fuck are you talking about? You have no clue about my "rationale". In most places it's illegal to hack into computer systems, good intentions or bad. It's at least a problem at this university that they charged this guy in the first place. He did wrong. People here don't like my analogy, I think it's appropriate. People are so goddammed literal - it's a fucking analogy. It fits as well as anything else. "No a better analogy would be-" for you to fuck off.
When did I say anything about not wanting progress? I didn't. Not even the slightest. Where you got that, I don't know. Apparently just pulled it out of your ass. Don't like my opinion, so you come up with some straw-man argument.
So you equate some asshole breaking into a university computer system and poking around with the invention of the car or airplane? Just how fucking stupid are you?
So here it is again, no analogy. Guy broke into the computer system, without authorization, and poked around where he shouldn't have. He got caught and was punished. All of that is valid. All of that is GOOD. A GOOD THING TO PUNISH AN ASSHOLE FOR BREAKING INTO A COMPUTER SYSTEM WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION.
"But - but, he was, just - just trying to point out a, a problem, bu-bu-bu-bu..." Too fucking bad for him. Should have gone through proper channels. Should have done it the right way. This guy is not a whistle-blower, he's a dumb prick who apparently thinks he's better that the people currently running the university. It doesn't even matter if he is better than them.
I can not see how anyone can defend what he did. Rule of law is a good thing.
All analogies break down at some point. However I don't see this as a bad analogy. He "hacked into some accounts". It matters not if he actually "broke" anything. Hacking into an account, that is, getting access to information he should not have, is wrong, against the rules, maybe illegal, regardless of how easy it is, or if you don't believe I can do it or any "excuse" you think of. IT'S FUCKING WRONG.
It's wrong in the same way as if I wander into your house's open front door and look around. I don't break anything, hell, I might even clean your kitchen floor. It doesn't matter if I lock the door behind me when I leave, however briefly I was there. I committed a crime, breaking and entering, regardless of my "good intentions".
Same thing here. So there was no physical "breaking". So what? He broke rules, and maybe laws, and got access to information he should not have had. He "says" he didn't do anything, but do we really know that? Maybe not. We don't know what he copied down while he was "proving there was a problem". If the admin "didn't believe him" he could have tried a higher-up, or just given up. He tried, they didn't believe him, oh well, too bad for them. Admins being jerks or stupid don't give you the right to break the law.
I'm taking Mike's word for it: "the guy did hack into some accounts". That's wrong, end of story.
Sorry if you don't see that. Sorry if you don't like the analogy. Hacking into accounts is wrong and might even be a crime (clicks on a mouse or not). Just because the net admin is an idiot and didn't prevent it and it's really easy and he didn't break anything anyway, doesn't make it any less wrong.
If someone accidentally leaves their front door unlocked and wide open, you don't break into their house to prove a point.
Note: "It does sound like, in the process of figuring this out, the guy did hack into some accounts to prove that the vulnerability was there"
"Hey, I noticed your front door was open so I came in and looked around. Did you know that the top drawer of your dresser is the first place a thief would look for jewelry? You should get that fixed."
If he knew of the vulnerabilities he should have informed someone without poking around himself. Doesn't matter if he had good intentions, or if he documented it all or anything. He should never have "proved it" for himself. "I think these things are wrong, you should check on them." A note on the front door, not one on the kitchen table, as it were.
"Yeah, I gotcha VCR right here, 10 bucks. No need ta tell the cops."
Sorry, but just because they claimed it was all on the up-and-up, doesn't mean it was. Anyone downloading from them was likely stealing, and refund or not, should delete anything they got. Seriously, people thought it was legit?
# For works created after January 1, 1978, copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. In the case of a joint work, copyright lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For anonymous and pseudonymous works and works made for hire, copyright lasts 95 years from the year of first publication or 120 years from the year of creation, whichever ends first.
# For works created but not published or registered before January 1, 1978, copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years, but it will not expire earlier than December 31, 2002. If the work is published before December 31, 2002, copyright will not expire before December 31, 2047.
# For pre-1978 works still in their original or renewal term of copyright, copyright is extended to 95 years from the date that copyright was originally secured.
Might be a bit more than that, but that's the gist, at least in the US.
This is a story. It's just me. But it's something I do, and so maybe other people do it as well.
I found out about (probably here) an artist called Flashbulb, who had his music sold on iTunes. Problem was, he didn't authorize it and wasn't getting paid for it, and when he asked them to stop they said "It's too hard to do that, so sorry." They also, IIRC, didn't ever give him any money.
So he decided to give the music away himself. I went to his site, downloaded the songs, burned them to a CD and listened. And liked it. So I decided to send him some money. 10 bucks. Seemed a fair price to me. He got the whole $10.
This came from "giving away something for free". Don't know if he made much money on this, but I assume others gave him a few bucks as well. And I bought other music off his site as well.
I sent $20 to Nina Paley, for the movie "Sita Sings the Blues". She gave that away for free (for other reasons).
I prefer to send my money straight to the artist, and will often send more than I would want to give if I bought it at Best Buy or wherever.
However, this sounds like it penalizes me. I have to pay, regardless (well, if they had their way, eventually). Just like with cassette tapes. I have to pay more for a cassette, even if I just want to record my kids goofing around or a lecture at school or birds chirping outside my window or whatever. I am penalized for being a good citizen and doing things legally, because others might do something "illegal".
If my ISP charges more because maybe I'll download something illegally, what's to stop them at music? Tax #2 is movies, tax #3 is video games, tax #4 is e-books, etc.
Something that doesn't often get mentioned. It seems that some people think that musicians have a right to make money. Maybe they don't. Maybe making music is no longer a money-maker. Maybe people will lament it when bands stop touring and making albums and releasing music, but perhaps that will happen. If you can't afford to keep doing it for free, then you quit and become a plumber or something. So maybe the fall-out of P2P, Napster, Limewire, etc will be less music. People don't want to pay, will stop buying CDs, so that's it. Making music is no longer a good business model. Maybe the people who can afford to give it out for free and hope for the best will still do it, but those that wanted to have a #1 top-seller are SOL now.
So what? That's the way it is now. You can't make money making buggy whips anymore. Maybe you can't make money making music anymore. Too bad. It's had a good run, and now it's over.
Why should we assume that since people used to make money at making music, they still can, and we need to protect that?
The problem being batted back and forth here is what "should be" .vs. "what is". Weird Harold is technically correct: the rights holders get to decide what to do with their rights, that is, the music. And perhaps if Ms. Paley had asked first, she might have either gotten a better deal (good for her), or decided not to bother (bad for her and us).
The rights holders are seen as jerks and even idiots. I doubt they are currently making much if any money off of the songs. If this movie were to come out big, they could (perhaps) make a bunch of money in renewed interest. However, they seem to only see the short term. "You are doing something with our music without asking first, so screw you, and also, screw us. We want $50K today, rather than have to put any effort into possibly making much more tomorrow." That seems short-sighted and idiotic, but it is their right to do it.
Since they are doing it this way, they also happen to be making it difficult for Ms. Paley to make any money, and for the public to enjoy what is an excellent movie.
But they have the right to do this! It doesn't matter that, on the face of it, it looks stupid. It doesn't matter that Ms. Paley can't make money. It doesn't matter if I can't easily see the movie at the local Cinemark.
Is it dumb that music from the 1920's, performed by a singer who is now dead is STILL under copyright? Blame the people who voted for Sony Bono, and the other congress critters that voted for the Bono Act. But these are our laws, and Ms. Paley really should have looked into it more at the start rather than the end of her work.
It's all a shame, because the movie really is very good. I'll be sending her a few bucks to help out.