Regardless of what artists can do, good, bad, or indifferent, BitTorrent needs to engage/encourage any activity that shows it's not merely a way to break copyright. As it is, it looks to some like some kind of dope dealer, only existing to facilitate the misguided behavior of others. As such, it's easier to simply outlaw their existence in a misguided and ineffective effort to control that behavior.
Thing is, bittorrent is an excellent way to exchange large files at low cost. The F/OSS community, for instance, makes heavy use of it to distribute software. This is literally free stuff that the authors/owners want to be spread around (or at least don't care if it is), but due to lack of compensation aren't usually willing to sponsor large server farms and administrative oversight to do it. Bittorrent is the perfect solution. Spread the time/cost over a large base to the point where it isn't even noticed, and everybody's happy.
"We've already covered the bizarre story of Homeland Security effectively working for Disney in seizing some domains of sites that were used to file share movies (way, way, way outside of Homeland Security's mandate), and covered the sneaky attempt to defend those moves by conflating copyright infringement online with counterfeit drugs being sold online."
Perhaps the DHS feels that enforcing IP laws is pertinent to their mission since the US produces little else anymore, so protecting our only export other than dollars is essential to national security, inasmuch as a functional economy is essential to upholding the imagined value of a dollar.
We're essentially a service economy now, which amounts to a humongous circle-jerk. I pay you so you can pay him so he can pay his supporter so his supporter can pay me, with the government in the middle every step of the way brushing off crumbs into their accounts. Nobody produces anything, they just do things, like mainly think. Lose grip on your thinking, and you're all done.
Back when we made things like cars, trucks, chemicals, furniture, food, clothing, consumer goods, etc., we had things to sell to other countries. Now? Not so much. We got movies and music of questionable value, but certainly of greater value than what most other countries produce. Problem is, it's just thought. Nothing tangible, or scarce enough to raise its value. Other countries produce tangible goods, so they have something to trade.
It's a sad state of affairs we're in. I'm almost glad I'm dying soon. Ain't no flying cars anyway [grin]
When they can spend millions stashing tweets, you know the government has officially jumped the shark on frivolous spending. As if there were any question...
Anyway, if they want to piss away millions on making a game revolving around something they clearly don't understand, why not turn it into a jobs program, rather than hire Microsoft to create it? They'll just piss money away for a couple years and come out with some garbage that'll only run on Windows, and then only for a few minutes before crashing harder than Obama's numerous idiotic ideas for stimulating the economy. Then, who'd want to play the stupid thing? They wouldn't even be able to give it away.
Windsor's crime rate relative to Detroit's is so low, you could almost say there's no such thing as crime in that city. Their annual rates are lower than the daily rates for Detroit. For example, in 2007, their annual homicide rate was 1.2 per 100,000 people. So, they're understandably sensitive about appearing to be similar to the rathole they exist so close to.
You can see some of their stats at http://www.citystats.ca/city/Ontario/Windsor.html if you're interested.
I suspect the reason to any of these dingbats wants you to use specific viewers is so they can track your behavior. If they let you use whatever browser you want, usage data may not get back to them because their scripts get intercepted or blocked.
It's the only thing that makes sense. None of these guys develop viewers to make the users happy - why would they? There are a jillion of them out there already. There's no sense in reinventing the wheel, especially when you consider what it costs to do so. But, if you consider that they develop viewers to make themselves happy from a control and data collection standpoint, then you can see a motivation.
I think I must have a special account, too. I didn't get any "automatic" connections, and I was able to opt out of the whole thing as well.
I don't think it's a good idea, but I never thought Facebook or MySpace would take off, either. Shows how much I know. Apparently, a great many people are more than willing to share a lot more information than they should. Maybe I'm too private, or perhaps even paranoid or anti-social, but I don't want people to know every single thing about me and/or my friends, right down to reading our mail.
I hate to make ad hominem attacks, and I'm not a psychiatrist, but the more I hear/read of what Mr. Murdoch says, the more convinced I become that the poor man is losing his grip.
Doesn't he have boards of directors or advisors or somebody to sorta guide him along? If nothing else, get him out of the spotlight. Regardless of what people may think of the various media organizations he owns/controls, he's making them lose credibility by association.
I tried posting a comment on the Examiner site, and it appears to have fallen into a black hole. Apparently, they only want to give the impression that they care what you have to say. They don't actually want to expose it.
Good points, but I don't think the story is about consumer angst or indignation. It's about an artist whining/worrying that he's getting cheated when it's highly unlikely he is. As Mike points out, it's more likely he's benefiting from the competition, if there's any effect at all.
I know the reality is different, but I wonder if the newspapers are worried that today's reader gets 90% of their news from the story's headline. Assuming someone reads past that, the rest of the story is usually in the first paragraph. So, if the aggregators snatch the headline and first paragraph, they've got pretty much the whole thing and nobody will click through to read the filler tripe.
Not that the newspapers care if you read the copy in the first place, but they do want you to see the ads and give their servers a chance to do their spyware thing.
Mike said: "The thing is, the evidence actually suggests he's wrong. People who first become interested in such "bottom up" knowledge, often go on to seek out the "thoughtful, considered editorial."
It's true. I happen to subscribe to his magazine for that very reason. It's a superior publication that treats its subject matter in way you can't easily find anywhere else.
I'm surprised he'd pick "Gourmet" magazine to defend or point to as an example of what we'll lose as a result of easy access, as it's the very type of supermarket rack fodder that many people try to avoid. I foolishly subscribed to it for one year, and let the subscription lapse. I'm not surprised it's going out of business - it's not worth the price of admission. I'm not sure I'd accept a subscription to it even for free, as it would add to my waste removal problem.
Mike said: "I am honestly curious how patent system defenders, who are also programmers, can defend this."
I certainly can't speak for all programmers, but I'm quite sure that the subset of programmers who also support software patents is quite small. You simply can't be as shortsighted and oblivious to reality as you'd have to be in order to support software patents and still be a programmer at the same time.
The only way I could see that being true would be perhaps in the case of a novice programmer who "discovers" the binary sort or the linked list, and is naive enough to think nobody's ever thought of it before or that it wouldn't be obvious to the first person who developed a need for the algorithm. A child like that might believe he could run to the patent office and lock that little bit of prescience down in order to get rich, never realizing that it's the equivalent of giving someone directions to get from Michigan to Ohio. There are a million ways to do it; simply documenting the idea that you can do it is foolish in the extreme, and undeserving of patent protection.
The reason the whiners are losing share isn't Craig's List, Google, or Pirates. It's SUPER INTELLIGENT TALKING MICE! Yes, that's right boys and girls. Super intelligent talking mice are invading households all over the world, sneaking into dens, bedrooms, family rooms and studies, and whispering all there is to know about everything into the ears of everyone who can hear. I'm not making this up.
It doesn't seem like this would impact the reporters who are just trying to earn a magnanimous living, but think about it. Would you read the news again if you already knew the whole story? Of course not. As a result, pageviews, clickthoughs, and ad sales are at an all-time low all across the mainstream media. Sad, but true.
Congress needs to Act Now, and nip this in the bud. NIP IT! Otherwise, before you know it there won't be any alternative to commercial cat litter, hamster cage nesting material, or fish wrap.
...one point I raised briefly (which got a laugh from the audience) was the crazy idea that some of Reznor's actions made him "seem human," and how rare that was in the music industry.
It is rare. Having spent a lot of time with a number of musicians over the years, there are very few of them I've met that have better social skills than a 2 year old, or could handle a business as complex as a paper route. Managing them is like herding cats. To expect them to be responsible for their own success is about as realistic as expecting a child to fix your car. It's possible, but unlikely.
That's why a music "industry" exists. If it were left up to the artists, all the world would have is a bunch of extremely localized chanting drum circles.
Not that I condone the "industry" abusing the artists the way they do - far from it. But, we have to realize they do serve a purpose. Not everyone is a Trent Reznor or Paul McCartney.
I agree that putting up a paywall is going to fail, but that's not what will be blamed. Google, Yahoo!, MS Live, et al will charged with it.
What will be funny is the search engines and aggregators will send him a great deal of traffic, but people will be turned away at the gate, and eventually stop hitting his site(s). If those helpful services are smart, they'll keep track of how many hits are passed his way, so they can compare that to how many subscribers he actually signs. Then we'll see who's doing what and how successfully.
"advertisers don't care if you have readers. they don't need people to read your stuff they need people to read theirs."
Sure they do. If there's nobody reading your stuff, nobody sees their ads.
That's how ad prices are set - by how many eyes/ears are exposed to your presentation. That's why newspapers care about circulation, and why radio/TV stations care about ratings. Those numbers are directly proportional to the amount of attention you're getting. The higher those numbers are, the more you can charge for adspace/airtime.
"...the theaters will have to cave in, and focus on what's always worked for theaters: making the overall experience better."
That's a good idea, but I'm not sure what more they can do. As it is, the theater-going experience has become miserable, time-consuming, restrictive, and expensive. There isn't space here to go into all the reasons I say that, but it should be considered that it's not that difficult to have a good theater experience in the home these days.
For what a "night at the movies" can cost these days, it doesn't take long to justify some pretty nice home theater audio/video equipment. Then you don't have to deal with driving, parking, crowds, noise, social and behavioral restrictions, and exorbitant costs.
What can theaters do to improve that whole situation? They can't remove travel time/cost. They can't (effectively) control the crowds or noise, except through social and behavioral restrictions that make you uncomfortable yourself. Their costs are sky-high because Hollywood wants so much for licensing and the theater still has to light, heat, and equip the place, so they have to charge $5 for $.05 worth of popcorn.
I think the theater may be a dying breed. Outside the truly unique experience like IMAX, how can anyone justify seeing a standard movie at a theater? I know I can't. It'll be a cold day in hell before I ever go to a theater to see something again.