From people who KNOW what the music business is. What do you know of the music business Mike? Other than as a casual observer.
My money's on sweet FA.
I know a good deal about the music business, since I talk to plenty of people in it all the time, but that's besides the point. This isn't about knowing "the music business" it's about numbers and statistics.
And neither Taplin, nor Newhoff, have a single number in their posts. Just weird ad hom attacks.
The FMC post, at least, has some more relevant critiques of the methodologies where the numbers come from, and I accept those as more valid. But they fail to provide any alternatives as well. Given all the numbers we've seen over time (beyond just what Johnson has), I've yet to see a single dataset that suggests there are few people creating today, and making money from it, than in the past.
I don't think any of that is an overreaction at all. I'd like to see a lot more products and services eliciting the same overreaction.
I don't really see why. Thing is, if Spotify were actually going to do those evil things, then there would be legit reasons to worry about the service. Changing the policy has little to do with the actual actions by the company.
That's why focusing on *the policy* is so ridiculous. The policy is meaningless. The actions are what matters.
I'm trying my hardest to figure out what you think this means. If someone signing me up for this, which has no impact on anything, other than that I got three random emails (and a good story to post on the blog), is "karma" then it sounds like I'm living a pretty clean life, huh?
IP doesn't fund anything, it's an investment protection.
That's not the way people talk about it -- which was the point we were making. Most people who support IP talk about it as it's necessary for any business model to exist. That's the point we are discussing.
As an aside, I'll also note that it's TERRIBLE investment protection.
It seems you're talking about funding not patents. Prize money and crowdfunding are not alternatives to patents and nor are they mutually exclusive - someone who wins a prize for a malaria cure can still have a patent, they just solved the funding.
As we noted in the podcast. We were pretty explicit that none of these models excludes using IP. We're just talking about getting past the idea that IP is the only possible way to fund these things.
Cowdfunding is a great alternative to venture capital, but it has no impact on IP and patents. An artist on patron still has copyright on their work. Amanda Palmer still gets and cashes her BMI/ASCAP cheques.
Again, we said that in the podcast.
Not sure what point you're making?
FFs, Fanclubs? We don't need IP because "FANCLUBS"
We didn't say that. But if you don't think fan clubs are huge money makers for some creators, you're wrong.
The bigger question is: what other telecoms are doing the same thing?
Did you read the original report?
The reports suggest AT&T was *by far* the closest cooperator with the NSA. Verizon was a part of a much smaller program, and it's likely a few others were as well. But none were anywhere near as close as AT&T.